Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills A Baseline Study from Budi County, South Sudan
By Paul Makenzi
December 2005
DCG Report No. 39
Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
A Baseline Study from Budi County, South Sudan
On top of Didinga Hills - Nahichot Payam
Paul Makenzi
DCG Report No. 39 December 2005
The Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) is an NGO-driven forum for exchange of practical experiences and knowledge on food security and natural resource management in the drylands of Africa. DCG facilitates this exchange of experiences between NGOs and research and policy-making institutions. The DCG activities, which are carried out by DCG members in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mali and Sudan, aim to contribute to improved food security of vulnerable households and sustainable natural resource management in the drylands of Africa.
The founding DCG members consist of ADRA Norway, CARE Norway, Norwegian Church Aid, Norwegian People's Aid, The Strømme Foundation and The Development Fund. The secretariat of DCG is located at the Environmental House (Miljøhuset G9) in Oslo and acts as a facilitating and implementing body for the DCG. The DCG’s activities are funded by NORAD (the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation).
Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the DCG secretariat. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this publication are entirely those of the author(s) and cannot be attributed directly to the Drylands Coordination Group.
© Makenzi, Paul. Drylands Coordination Group Report No. 39 (12, 2005) Drylands Coordination Group c/o Miljøhuset G9 Grensen 9b N-0159 Oslo Norway Tel.: +47 23 10 94 90 Fax: +47 23 10 94 94 Internet: http://www.drylands-group.org
ISSN: 1503-0601
Photo credits: T.A. Benjaminsen, Gry Synnevåg, and Paul Makenzi.
Cover design: Spekter Reklamebyrå as, Ås. Printed at: Mail Boxes ETC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS ...... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTs...... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... vii 1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Rationale for the Study...... 1 1.3 Description of the Study Area...... 1 1.3.1 Location...... 1 1.3.2 Climate ...... 2 1.3.3 Soils...... 2 1.3.4 Topography ...... 2 1.3.5 Vegetation ...... 2 1.3.6 Ethnic and Socio-Cultural set up...... 3 1.3.7 Population...... 4 1.3.8 Socio-political set up...... 5 2. METHODLOGY...... 6 2.1 Data collection and tools used...... 6 2.1.1 Spatial data ...... 6 2.1.2 Community Sketch Map of Budi County...... 6 2.1.3 How the mapping exercise was conducted ...... 7 2.1.4 Transect ...... 9 2.1.5 The transect exercises conducted during the study ...... 9 2.2 Temporal Data on NRM in Budi...... 13 2.2.1 Historical Time Lines...... 13 2.2.2 Trend Lines ...... 14 2.3 Social Data on Environment and NRM in Budi...... 19 2.3.1 Institutional Analysis...... 19 2.3.2 Ranking of the listed institutions...... 21 2.3.3 Livelihood Mapping...... 21 2.3.4 Gender analysis in NRM...... 24 3. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENT AND NRM ISSUES IN BUDI...... 27 3.1 NRM Problems Analysis...... 27 3.2 Problems ranking...... 29 4. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS……………………………………………………….31 4.1 NRM Problems in the Agro-Pastoral Areas...... 31 4.2 Environment and NRM problems in Pastoral payams of Budi...... 31 4.3 Farmers’ Perception of Environment and NRM Problems in Budi County ...... 32 5. NRM STRATEGIC PLAN FOR BUDi COUNTY ...... 34 6. NRM COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN (CAP) AND IMPLEMENTATION ...... 36 6.1 Implementation...... 40 7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 41 8. REFERENCES...... 44 9. ANNEXES ...... 46 Annex 1: List of Participants during the four days of community workshops ...... 46
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Population based on food relief record ...... 4 Table 2: Historical Time Lines of Budi County as per the local community during group discussions...... 13 Table 3: List of Institutions and their activities in Budi County...... 20 Table 4 : Gender Activity Profile Analysis...... 25 Table 5: Problem Analysis ...... 27 Table 6: Indicators of poor and unproductive land ...... 33 Table 7: Strategic NRM plan for Budi County ...... 34 Table 8: Environment/NRM Management Community Action Plan. (E/NRM) Of Budi County ...... 36
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map of South Sudan showing the Regions and Counties. The study Area (Budi) is highlighted...... ix Figure 2: Community Resource Sketch Map of Budi County showing the Buya and Didinga Hills ...... 8 Figure 3: Transect through Komiri, Nahichot, Loudo and Lauro payams in the Didinga Hills ...... 11 Figure 4: Transect through Kimatong, Ngaric, Komiri and Lotukei, Komiri, payams in Budi county...... 12 Figure 5: Trend line of the civil war ...... 15 Figure 6: Trend line of cattle rustling (Raiding) ...... 16 Figure 7: Trend line of Forests...... 16 Figure 8: Trend line of water Sources, mainly the rivers...... 17 Figure 9: Human Population Trend in Budi County...... 17 Figure 10: Seasonal Calendar of activities in Budi county ...... 18 Figure 11: Pair-wise Ranking matrix of Institutions...... 21 Figure 12: Livelihood Map of Budi County...... 23 Figure 13: Pair-wise Ranking Matrix of NRM problems in Budi County...... 29
iv
ACRONYMS
ADRA Adventist Development and Relieve Agency A.I.C. African Inland Church BLM Boma Liberation Council CDC County Development Committee (Budi) CDOT Catholic Diocese of Torit CDS Christian Development Service (in Budi) CLC County Liberation Council CRS Catholic Relief Services DCG Drylands Coordination Group E.C.S Episcopal Church of Sudan Galchalo Peace and Development Committee (Kimatong payam) GOs Government Organizations IDP Internally Displaced Persons NCA Norwegian Church Aid NGOs Non Governmental Organizations NLC National Liberation Council NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation Noragric Department for International Environment and Development Studies, University of Life Sciences. NPA Norwegian Peoples Aid NSCC New Sudan Council of Churches OLS Operation lifeline Sudan PHCC Primary Health Care Centre PHCU Primary Health Care unit PLC Payam Liberation Council RLC Regional Liberation council SPF Sudan Peace Fund SPLA Sudan Peoples Liberation army SPLM Sudan People Liberation Movement SRRC Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission. U.R.C United Reformed Church
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The idea to conduct the study on NRM problems in Budi County, Equatoria region of South Sudan was conceived by the Adventist Development Relief Agency (ADRA) South Sudan, one of the members of the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) Sudan. The field study and preparation of this report was carried out on behalf of the DCG by Dr. P. Makenzi a consultant/lecturer in environmental sciences at Egerton University, Kenya. The field work was done through ADRA-South Sudan country office that was responsible for the local logistical arrangements.
A number of other institutions, individuals and groups were involved in the realization of the objectives of the study; it is not possible to mention all of them but a few. DCG in particular wishes to acknowledge and thank all the institutions/organizations, individuals and groups that were involved in this study and production of the report. Many thanks go to ADRA South Sudan office for its role in the implementation of the study on behalf of DCG. It took charge of all the logistical arrangements on the ground and hosted the consultant and his field team in its camp in Chukudum.
The assessment and baseline survey of NRM problems in the Didinga and Buya hills was conducted using participatory tools and required voluntary participation of the local community leaders (the list of all those who participated is shown in annex 1 of this report), who are highly acknowledged.
Special mention goes to Dr. Jackson Zowaia, Dr. John Lagu and all the staff including the drivers and kitchen staff of the ADRA office in Chukudumu, Budi county in South Sudan; their cooperation and logistical support during the study is highly appreciated.
Many thanks to the field team drawn from SRRC and especially the Budi county commissioner and his executive director for their invaluable support to the consultant. Many thanks to Augustino Lokonyen the SRRC agriculture coordinator and Martin Aporu-SRRC forest coordinator, for accompanying the consultant during the strenuous transect travels and for their assistance during the interviews and group discussions. In addition to assisting as interpreters, they themselves were a great source of invaluable information for the study.
Last but not least many thanks to all the local community leaders who participated in group discussions and in the final community workshops. Special acknowledgement also goes to all the SRRC officials particularly the commissioner Mr. Emilio Loki and all the payams’ administrators. They played a great role in owning and endorsing the findings of the study; their commitment to start implementing some of the study findings as confirmed by the county commissioner himself is quite commendable.
The collective and individual efforts of all of these people and others whose names do not appear here, led to the successful completion of the study and publication of this document.
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Environmental degradation arising from the depletion of forest biodiversity and the resulting problems, such as soil erosion, water shortage, climate change and poverty, have become issues of global concern. The worst hit by these problems are women and men living in fragile environments of Sub-Saharan Africa. In South Sudan, unfortunate issues like political instability, some socio-cultural practices like cattle raiding to pay dowries, and ignorance of proper Natural Resource Management (NRM) and forest biodiversity conservation have exacerbated environmental degradation problems. In Didinga and Buya hills in Budi county, Equatoria region, South Sudan, which is the focus of this study, environmental degradation problems have in the recent past become evident. Droughts have become persistent, many rivers and streams which used to flow throughout the year have become seasonal or dried up completely, food production has gone down with food insecurity being experienced in all the payams in Budi county. It is against this background that this baseline study was conceived. The main objective of this baseline study was to assess the NRM problems, the scope of environmental degradation in the Didinga and Buya Hills and its underlying causes. The aim of this was to document accurate baseline data that could pave the way for developing management strategies that are locally appropriate and acceptable to foster sustainable natural resource management. This study aimed at justifying the fact that new and adoptable local specific, traditional and/or scientific ecological knowledge can be derived from perspective investigation of NRM and environmental problems based on local and traditional knowledge systems. (Johannes, 1989).
A social survey research method applying participatory tools of data collection was used covering the seven payams in Budi county. Interviews and group discussions with local community leaders and farmers randomly selected from the seven payams were conducted. SRRC extension coordinators participated as guides during field data collection.
The ultimate goals in application of participatory tools in such an exercise were to: • Enable the Didinga and Buya Hills’ communities to self-discover and appreciate their natural resources, this was done through participatory resource mapping of the county. • Facilitate them to identify NRM and environmental degradation problems that threaten their natural resources. • Conduct together with the local communities an on-the-site (instant) analysis and synthesis of data collected on NRM problems. • Facilitate the local community to develop environmental conservation and NRM strategies and action plans. • Influence positively, the local community’s attitude and behaviour towards environmental issues of their area with a view to their involvement in the implementation of the strategic and NRM action plans, and ; • Through this report, inform the government of New Sudan and other development change agents who would like to work in this area, for example, ADRA, DCG, NPA and others, about the local community’s felt NRM problems, how the local people are copping with these problems and areas where external interventions are needed most.
The consultant together with the field team endeavoured to conduct the study in such a way that the local communities and /or their leaders were fully involved. The reason for this was in
vii order to ensure that the study was not purely investigative but that it also included aspects of negotiation with the local community, the local authorities and other development change agents in order for them, if possible to participate in the implementation of the findings/results of the study.
Data presented in this study report support the following findings: First, that there are severe environmental degradation problems in Budi caused by deforestation, poor NRM, soil erosion and overgrazing; that the causes of these problems are the prolonged civil war in South Sudan and the cattle raiding culture which has forced the Didinga communities to settle and cultivate in the steep slopes of the hills for security reasons; that farmers in the study area had not realized the scope of NRM and environmental problems in their areas, and hence they have not put much effort in NRM and particularly in tree planting, soil and water management. The study recommends the adoption and implementation of the proposed NRM strategies by all the stakeholders (see page 43), in efforts to solve environmental degradation and NRM problems in Budi county. That concerted efforts should be made towards change of attitude by the local communities for them to appreciate that they have a role to play in environmental conservation and proper NRM. This report, which provides original insights on NRM issues in Budi county, is meant to serve as a reference document that development change agents, researchers, political and policy makers can rely on with regard to NRM challenges and that the New Sudan faces in its period of reconstruction.
viii
BUDI
Figure 1: Map of South Sudan showing the Regions and Counties. The study Area (Budi) is highlighted
Key: Dark Shade: High water potential Light Shade: Medium water potential Clear: Low water potential
ix x Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Environmental problems resulting from biodiversity depletion and poor natural resource management have become manifold and complex. Makenzi (2003) identifies amongst others, deforestation, soil degradation and lack of water, occasioned by persistent droughts and or improper or lack of management of the natural resources in the catchment areas as the major causes of environmental degradation. In fragile ecological areas such as in the Didinga Hills, these problems if allowed, could have adverse effects to the life support systems, in particular, flora and fauna and to the food security situation of the area. There is evidence, from accounts by local communities and other stakeholders to suggest that Budi county is already experiencing signs of prolonged drought periods, reduction in the level of food production and drying of several rivers and most streams which used to flow throughout the seasons. It is against this background, that this study was conceived. Environmental problems became more evident through discussion of the following issues related to natural resources management and biodiversity conservation: 1) local communities’ socio-cultural characteristics critical to environmental conservation; 2) trend and status of local natural resources and type and mode of transfer of technology (TOT) in their management, 3) contribution of socio-political situation over time to environmental protection and NRM, and; 4) appreciation by the local communities of the environmental problems and their role in its conservation.
1.2 RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
The Drylands Coordination Group initiated this study based on the foregoing background in order to qualitatively assess the scope of environmental degradation in the Didinga hills and the underlying causes. The purpose was that at the end of the study, environmental conservation and management strategies that are locally appropriate to foster sustainable NRM will be developed. Also, the study was meant to come up with practical recommendations on how to manage the natural resource use in the Didinga hills and its surrounding areas in a sustainable way. The specific objectives of the study were to:
• Investigate the scope of environmental degradation in the Didinga hills over the last twenty years; • Determine the specific causes of the degradation in the environment; • Enable the local communities and other stakeholders to develop strategic measures and action plans to counter the degradation; and • To disseminate the findings of the study to various stakeholders for the implementation of the results.
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
1.3.1 Location The Didinga Hills, according to the survey by the study team and in consultation with the local communities, include all the hills and valleys within the Budi county, in Eastern Equatoria region of Southern Sudan (see the community resource map in Figure 2). The hills and ranges commonly referred to as the Didinga hills run in both the eastern and western sides of the county. In between the ranges are lowland and plains, to the extreme west of the county
1
Drylands Coordination Group is the Kidepo valley bordering Torit County while on the eastern side of the hills are the Kapoeta plains (see county map in Figure 1).
Budi County was named after the two dominant ethnic groups residing in this county, the Buya and the Didingas. The county is made up of seven payams namely; Lotukei, Komiri, Laura. Loudo, Nahichot (central), Ngarich and Kimatong (see community sketch map of the county in Figure 2). Other neighboring counties include Pibor to the north and Uganda to the south.
1.3.2 Climate Budi county experiences a bimodal rainfall pattern with the long rains falling from April to July and short rains from September to November (see seasonal calendar in Figure5). The climatic conditions however vary between the highlands and lowlands. The highlands characterized by the Didinga hills exhibit favorable climatic conditions with high to medium agricultural potential. The lowlands however experience prolonged droughts especially the Kimotong and Ngarich payams with the short rains frequently missing (NPA Annual reports, 2004). This study confirmed that the climatic conditions in Budi county, in the recent past have generally deteriorated with persistent droughts being experienced in most payams, thus reducing the level of food production in most parts of the county. The altitude is estimated to vary from 500M to 1500M above sea level. The annual average rainfall is estimated to be more than 1500mm.
1.3.3 Soils The soils are predominantly sandy loams with some locations having clay, fertile red soils and rocky in others. The soils in most parts of the county have good chemical and physical properties to support many types of crops (Author’s survey, 2005). For example, the soil in Nahichot payam for a long time was acclaimed to be so fertile that farmers interviewed would joke about it, to the effect that “even if you planted a nail in that soil, the nail would germinate”. This however is no longer the case as this study found out; the soils in Nahichot are no longer as fertile as before, continued cultivation without sustainable management practices has highly reduced land productivity.
1.3.4 Topography The topography of Budi county is hilly with many hills and ranges some with steep slopes of more than 50%. Rivers and streams abound in most payams except in Kimotong, Ngarich and Lotukei where rivers are few. However, several of these rivers and streams which the communities claim used to flow throughout the year have became seasonal, flowing only during the rainy season. Lowlands and valleys are also found in this county, the major one being the Kidepo valley where most rivers flowing eastwards drain into. The major rivers are: Ero, Kuthwa and Kurumo in Lotikei payam, Nairobi, Lotibok, Kuwa, Kibiric rivers and many streams in Komiri payam, Kimodo, and Legelio river in Loudo payam. Nathilani River starts from Nathilan hills in Loudo and flows through Loudo to Thingaita river in kapoeta county. There are several seasonal streams in Ngarich payam; however, a recently formed lake, Kodobol (1985), is the main source of water for people and livestock in the area. Kimotong payam has only seasonal streams. (Author’s survey, 2005)
1.3.5 Vegetation The vegetation varies from semiarid type dominated by Acacia spp. and a variety of shrubs with different grass species and herbs to wet tropical type with multi-species of both indigenous and exotic tree species, shrubs, herbs and tall grass. The vegetation in the western and most of the lowlands within the county has not been highly interfered with and hence has
2 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills remained somehow intact. The vegetation on hills in the eastern hilly part of the county show signs of serious degradation because of the settlements, which are concentrated there for security reasons as will be discussed later in this report. Nahichot payam, which has most of the forest reserves has been highly settled and signs of deforestation and cultivation on very steep hill slopes continue. Remnants of valued indigenous species like Prunus Africana, Chlorophora exelsa, Olea Africana, Albizia and Polysias spp. can be identified and dominate in the few forest reserves remaining in the county. (Author’s survey, 2005)
1.3.6 Ethnic and Socio-Cultural set up Two of the Didinga-Murle speaking people of South Sudan and Ethiopia, Didinga and Buya communities live in Budi County hence its name, meaning Buya and Didinga. The Didinga ethnic group dominates, Didingas occupying five of the seven payams in the county while the Buya community occupy the two remaining payams. Other communities represented in the county by the IDP include Toposa, Longirs, Dinkas and Nuba. The Didinga-Murle are a protogroup or family, which anthropologists and ethnolinguists categorize as “Surma.” In the South Sudan, they include the Didinga, Longarim (Buya), Ternet (Lopit), Kachipo, and Murle (Longirs) (Internet- www.Sudan People.com, 2004).
The ethnic and socio-cultural history of these people is long and complicated according to the peace-signing inaugural speech by the SPLA/M leader, Dr. John Garang in Nairobi in January 2005. When Garang referred to South Sudan as the actual biblical “garden of Eden” as written in Genesis 2:8-14 (Nation Daily, 2005), what he actually meant were the hills and valleys the first Didinga-Murle families have been traversing over time until they settled in the Didinga hills in Budi county. The ethnic and socio-cultural history of the Didinga and their neighbors, as this study confirmed, has somehow contributed to their settling on the steep slopes of the Didinga hills thus exacerbating environmental degradation as will be noted later in this report. Their history is as follows:
It is believed that the Didinga (which included all the Western Surmic groups today, i.e. the Didinga, Longarim, Ternet and Murle) first settled in the Didinga Hills nearly 300 years ago. They had migrated from the Omo Valley, the present Maji Province in southwestern Ethiopia, and moved over time in a south-western direction until they reached Mt. Lotukei. Upon arrival here, the Didinga found that the Jie (now in Uganda) were already settled around the eastern fringes of Mt. Lotukei.
The Didinga harassed the Jie and forced them to flee. On the western sides of Mt Lotukei the Didinga also found that strangers, the Longirs, were already settled there. The Didinga faced these groups in battles and finally pushed them across Kidepo Valley. The Didinga then occupied the land, and settled on the fringes of Bohorora and Lohichot. Later on they moved to Lauro on top of the Didinga hills.
In Lauro Village, on top of the Didinga hills, the tribes lived and prospered. As the main population may have been dependent on hunting, gathering wild honey, fruits and tubers, a large population could not co-habit peacefully in a small space for a long time. Hence, Lauro started facing internal problems and disputes. During those times, conflicts were resolved not through courts but through “rimenit” (i.e. by others moving away from the scene). Indeed, those who became Murle, Ternet, and Longarim (Narim or Buya) decided to move out of Lauro Village and descended to the Thingaita Valley, the river flowing through Kapwata town. They thus earned themselves the nickname Muur-lill — meaning the people who descended from the mountain (muur) to the valley (lill) in anger.
3
Drylands Coordination Group
After living in Thingaita Valley for a while, the Murle were confronted by another intruder: the Toposa whom they also pushed away from the hills. Thus the Didinga are surrounded by embittered ethnic groups, the Longirs to the east the Toposa to the west and the Jie/Karamanjog to the south in Uganda, whom they accuse of constant cattle rustling keeping them settled only on steep hills for security reasons; their close brothers the Buyas are also very suspicious of the Didingas and vice versa. (Internet- www.Sudan People.com, 2004).
1.3.7 Population There is no exact data on the population of Budi since no proper form of census has been conducted for the last thirty years. However, there is some information on population estimates at the local SRRC office in Chukudumu which is based on the registration of persons and households for purposes of food relief distribution. From these records the rough estimates of the population in Budi per payam and per Boma/court is shown in the table below.
Table 1: Population based on food relief record Payam Name of “A” Court (Area Estimated Number of Manned by a chief) Population Households Komiri Chukudum 4767 795 Lothigira 4329 722 Monita 3853 643 Lohipor 3377 563 Betalado 7326 1221 Kikilai 9363 1561 Total Komiri 33015 5505 Kimatong Kerenge 6742 1122 Chawanaoyapak 10576 1763 Kimatong/Zuguro 8932 1489 Total Kimatong 26250 4374 Loudo Bohora 4354 726 Nathalani 6454 1076 Charit/Loudo 11253 1876 Ngatuba 6412 1069 Total Loudo 28473 4747 Lauro Tala 3064 511 Tulugi 6952 1159 Kilanya 9730 1622 Kibongolok 8152 1359 Total Lauro 27898 4651 Ngarich Kuduchak 6903 1151 Lobeli 4791 799 Kirongu/Lorok 4221 704 Total Ngarich 15915 2654 Lotukei Lorema 12029 2005 Lotukei/Piobokoi 8369 1395 Itingi 6955 1160
4 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
Total Lotukei 27353 4560 Central Zuguro 7305 1218 Kadumakuich 6309 1052 Nagishotlongadumo 5260 877 Naminit 7041 1174 Total Central 25915 4321 Total 184819 30812
1.3.8 Socio-political set up Sudan's post independence socio-political history has been largely shaped by the southern civil war which also affected Budi County. The civil war in Southern Sudan has not only retarded the county's social and economic development, encouraged internal strive and political instability, but has also contributed to environmental degradation due to complete disregard of any form of NRM.
However, within the context of the just concluded peace talks and signing of a peace agreement between the SPLM and the Government of Sudan which took place on January 9th 2005 in Nairobi Kenya, SPLM regarded as the government within the New Sudan has put in place legislative structures, which should take into account proper NRM as one of its priorities. The SPLM in the SPLA controlled areas proposed a legislative organ consisting of liberation councils as per the first national convention held in 1994 in Chukudum. The liberation councils are supposed to be elected by congress at different levels from the bottom, the Boma (BLC), Payam (PLC), and the County (CLC), up to the Regional (RLC) and the National liberation council (NLC). These liberation councils form the legislative bodies where matters of importance to the community are discussed and decided.
There would be periodic elections according to which people would be voted into the liberation councils. Affirmative action is invoked here to minimize gender difference where women are given a quota of 25% of the council seats and allowed to compete with men for the 75% remaining seats.
5
Drylands Coordination Group
2. METHODLOGY
This study used social survey research methods and applied a variety of participatory tools to obtain different forms of data. The data collected included: spatial, temporal and social data.
2.1 DATA COLLECTION AND TOOLS USED
A variety of participatory approaches using PRA tolls were applied in data collection. To ensure validity of the information gathered, participatory tools of data gathering were used where different tools were applied to collect similar data. The triangulation approach in data collection based on spatial, temporal and social survey was applied to ensure validation of the field data. At the end of each data gathering activity, instant field analysis of the findings was made. Still pictures were also taken to compliment the field information gathered.
Based on the terms of reference for this study, the following participatory rural appraisal tools of data collection were used and the participation of local community members was facilitated for the collection and validation of all information gathered before it was recorded.
The process of generating group discussions on data collection was designed to ease communication and comprehension by all. Lively discussions and debates, use of cards and language interpretation was emphasized during group discussion sessions.
To effectively and correctly apply the participatory tools in the collection of data, the field team was first given a short brief by the consultant. The field team doing data collection included the local SRRC extension officers and community representatives from different administrative levels.
2.1.1 Spatial data Spatial data comprised participatory resource mapping and transects through Budi county. This was done during the launching of the field exercise and entailed collection of data about space in regard to specific sites within the study area. This information enabled the field team and the local people to view community NRM issues, including problems and opportunities from a spatial perspective.
The appropriate participatory tools applied in gathering spatial information were:
Community Sketch Map Transects
These visual tools provided, at a glance, a sense of location and differential relationship. They encourage the field team and the local people to view and confirm community NRM problems and opportunities from a spatial perspective.
2.1.2 Community Sketch Map of Budi County Community sketch mapping provided a visual representation of what the community perceived as Didinga and Buya community’s space and their resources. This included
6 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills showing the shape (appearance) of the county boundaries and all the major resources and social features as understood and known by the community.
The Community Sketch Map showed where resources, activities, problems, and opportunities are located, as well as the dimension and scope of issues to be investigated.
General relief features (hills, escarpments, drainage features, etc.) were basic features considered when drawing a map. Similarly, information regarding other community resources and socio-economic infrastructure were not only mapped but discussed. The mapping also identified areas with specific problems (such as water-shortage, erosion and gulley formation) or potential for improved production (e.g. predominant agricultural and horticultural crops existing in the area for income generation).
2.1.3 How the mapping exercise was conducted The community members together with the field team and the SRRC extension field staff undertook this exercise during the launching of the field exercise. The field team explained the process and purpose clearly and then allowed the community to select an appropriate spot on the ground to be used for drawing the sketch map.
The map was drawn on the ground and all the community members participated in verifying it. The SRRC secretary provided a clear guidance on such matters such as the correct position of boundaries and other site-specific details.
After the community finished drawing and filling all the details in the map on the ground it was then transferred onto a paper including all the details as provided by the community for purpose of documentation. This map was later copied onto a large sheet and presented to the community for verification and adoption during a community workshop.
7
Drylands Coordination Group
Figure 2: Community Resource Sketch Map of Budi County showing the Buya and Didinga Hills (N.B: Central payam is also called Nahichot payam)
8 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
Subsequent discussion on the sketch map provided the opportunity for the community leaders, the field team and other interested change agents to show areas where particular NRM problems like deforestation, soil erosion and overgrazing predominate.
While the sketch map was still on the ground, it was used to lay and agree on the transect routes. The community members and guides used sticks, to mark the most representative cross section of the community, which then constituted the transect routes.
2.1.4 Transect This is a participatory spatial tool applied to gather additional information regarding location of resources and their state. Such information could not be gathered during sketch mapping. Transect was also used to confirm some of the significant features which were indicated in the sketch map but whose condition or state could not be ascertained. Thus,
“The transect was used as a ground truthing exercise which entailed walking, observing and noting the major resources indicated on the sketch map, it also confirmed some of the information provided during the mapping. N.B. A transect route is not necessarily a straight line although features observed during the exercise are presented to look like so. It can meander, bend and take corners if necessary.” (PRA, 1998)
Transecting exercises were conducted by walking and driving through the transect routes. The field team was able to enrich information provided by the sketch map, such as cropping patterns, forests and their state, water sources and their state, vegetation, land use practices and the status of socio-economic infrastructure. This way, at the end of the exercise, the field team was able to note and record some of the NRM problems and opportunities from a spatial perspective.
2.1.5 The transect exercises conducted during the study Two transect exercises were conducted. The first one done on foot was about 30 Km through the rugged Didinga hills from Chukudum eastwards up the hills to Lauro/Loudo and Nahichot payams, It took the study team two days with a difficult and risky sleep-over to reach the top of the hills (see Figure 3).
The second transect route from Lotikei to Kimotong a distance of about 90 Km. was undertaken using the 4WD car. It also took two days. The first day, the transect was from Chukudum to Lotikei and back, and the second day, it was from Chukudum to Kimotong through Ngarich and back (see transect map Figure 4).
All observable details like types of soils, cropping patterns, and farm size, water points, slope, and drainage; and even socio-economic indicators, etc were noted along the transect route. Also during this exercise, people met along the route were casually interviewed to give meaning and context to issues already identified, and to provide information on other observed conditions. Informal discussions and brief interviews were conducted with people encountered along the route.
Informal interviews held along the transect route were focused on observed phenomena. Critical issues arising from this process were further investigated through brief interviews with local leaders along the route.
9
Drylands Coordination Group
KOMIRI NAHICHOT LOUDO LAURO
Soils Sandy loams, Fertile red soils, Sandy loams, Laterite clay, laterite clay, sandy loams, rocky. sandy loams. murram. clay Vegetation Mixed exotic and Scattered Scattered trees Scattered trees indigenous tree indigenous trees and shrubs. and shrubs. species. Bamboo of value, shrubs, Some forest Some forest on some hills and variety of reserves e.g. reserves e.g. good grass on grasses Kiriain and Chudi, Ithayo, lowlands. Lohuya including napier Lijilic lokodongole Forest Res. grass. Planted variety of exotic tree species. Lahak Forest Res. Agriculture Maize, beans All agricultural Sorghum Sorghum sorghum, peas, crops and millet, cassava, millet, cassava, cassava, mangoes, vegetables seen livestock livestock livestock. incl. coffee, avocado, mangoes, sugar canes, and livestock. Water Sources Bore holes only in Rivers Lahaki, Seasonal rivers Seasonal rivers. Chukudumu, Namela. Rivers, Komiri, kalonga, nakalangi, narengamoru (all seasonal). Socio Economic Primary school Primary school Scattered huts SDA church, Indicators up to class four. scattered huts. NRM Fenced Intensive group Unfenced Overgrazing on Indicators households, hand cultivation, households, hill slopes. digging, free settlements on Ploughing/ grazing hill slopes. digging up Deforestation. slope. Overgrazing. Problems Cattle raiding, Drying of rivers, Inadequate Inadequate inadequate water, low crop yields, water, human water, human soil erosion, soil degradation, and livestock and livestock
10 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
overgrazing on livestock diseases, diseases, hill slopes, diseases. Lack erosion, erosion, deforestation, of good seed for overgrazing. overgrazing. livestock diseases panting. Opportunities Commercial Intensive Agroforestry, Agroforestry, trade, intensive agriculture, cash forest reserves forest reserves farming crops agroforestry, forest reserves. Figure 3: Transect through Komiri, Nahichot, Loudo and Lauro payams in the Didinga Hills
The transect exercises provided mapping information beyond that which could be contained in topographical maps. They also clarified information on specific characteristics such as slope, drainage, vegetation, water, soils, and other resources.
Box No. 1: Conservation of Forest Reserves in Nahichot
Use of bullets to conserve forests This information was gathered during the transect exercise. When the field team visited Nahichot, they spent the night at a grain store owned by the CDS. Next to this store was an SPLA command base with a missile launcher set outside the compound. The base commander in charge of the place informed us that some years back, their boss, disliked forest destruction so much that he used to instruct them to aim and shoot the bullets at the forest reserves to scare away forest destroyers. This can be described as a temporary NRM coping strategy which, somehow functioned that time. We were informed and observed that, some forest reserves which are now still intact around Nahichot survived as a result of this practice.
(N.B.: This NRM coping strategy worked well during the civil strive in Sudan, but might not work in a government where law and order is in place, shooting bullets any how would be illegal).
11
Drylands Coordination Group
KIMATONG NGARIC KOMIRI LOTUKEI
Soils Rocky, sandy Sandy loams Sandy loams, clay Rocky sandy and clay and clay Vegetation Dry natural Scattered trees and Large trees, natural Dry natural thorny thorny bushes, shrubs, bamboo, plantation of bushes, acacia, Balanites, Acacia spp., grass. bamboo, tall grass. scattered tress of Doum Balanites spp, palms in Lorem and natural along Kidepo valley. plantation of Doum palms along river beds. Agriculture White millet, Maize, sorghum, Maize beans, Maize, sorghum, livestock livestock pasture. cassava, mangoes, livestock pasture. pasture. livestock. Water Sources One bore hole, Dry streams Bore holes, One bore hole, seasonal seasonal rivers Morokwa and seasonal rivers rivers Kathawa, Ero, and Lilcitele, Korjir, and Kidobol Komiri Kibiric, Koruma. Kihoc, lake. Kuwa, Lotiboc and Nairobi. Socio- PHCC, many PHCC Airstrip, primary Primary school, health economic local breeds of school, small scale centre. indicators livestock. trading. NRM Subsistence Subsistence Subsistence Subsistence farming, indicators farming, free farming, free farming, noted livestock pasture grazing. grazing of mainly administrative napier. local breeds. centre at Chukudumu. Problems Water, Water, overgrazing, Raiding, poor Water, livestock overgrazing, erosion, Raiding, roads, diseases, food insecurity. erosion, cattle insufficient food. deforestation. raiding. Insufficient food. Opportunities Doum palm Koodobol lake, Commercial trade Damming of Ero river, processing, pasture and grazing and industry, zero wildlife sanctuary. water management. grazing, air strip. catchment from rocks, wildlife sanctuary. Figure 4: Transect through Kimatong, Ngaric, Komiri and Lotukei, Komiri, payams in Budi county During the transect we confirmed that Kodobol lake was a fresh water lake while we had earlier been informed that it was a saline lake.
12 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
2.2 TEMPORAL DATA ON NRM IN BUDI
This refers to time related information in as far as environment and NRM was concerned. This data was important in the study because it revealed some of the significant events that have happened within the community in the past, and which could have, in a way impacted on the NRM in the study area. Appropriate temporal data collection tools applied in this study were:
Historical time lines Trend lines Seasonal Calendar
2.2.1 Historical Time Lines A chronology of the historic events that have happened over the last forty years in Sudan helped the team learn how the community has handled some of the issues they faced in their history and how some of the events impacted on their environment and NRM. This information assisted in the formulation of possible solutions to some of the problems the community might be facing.
Table 2: Historical Time Lines of Budi County as per the local community during group discussions.
YEAR EVENTS REMARKS
1955 Independence Embittered Southern Sudanese ran to Uganda with their followed by livestock Southern Sudanese rebellion 1956 1Anyanya -1 Beginning of struggle by the Southern Sudanese started 1973/4 Norwegian church Agriculture program introduced mangoes Aid came to Budi county
1979 Drought, followed People fed on wild fruits by famine 1980 Floods followed by People and livestock affected Cholera outbreak 1983 SPLA intensified its NCA left Budi county because of insecurity struggle for recognition 1985 Anyanya - 2 SPLA Local people ran to settle on hills for safety break from Govt. Start of the Civil war. 1984/5 Major raids by Mass movement to Didinga hills’ slopes Jei/karomonta from for security
1 Anyanya was the name given to the black Sudanese major uprisings against the Khartoum government.
13
Drylands Coordination Group
Uganda 1985/6 SPLA army More movement to hills establishes its base in Chukudum 1990 Take over of More movement to settle on hills Chukudumu by Cause deforestation to intensify. great SPLA - Mobilization of -Youth recruited to fight. youth into SPLA 1993 NPA came into Starts health and agriculture programs Budi 1994 ADRA came to Started health, water and sanitation programs Budi 1994 1st national Idea of SPLM liberation councils convention in New at all levels mooted site 1995 NPA halts its agric. activities in Budi 1996 CDS established This is a local NGO dealing with Agriculture 1999 Major crisis in Budi placed under UN security Chukudum, killing Level 4 all NGOs removed of a paramount chief. 2000 Budi county established from Kapoeta 2001 CDOT priest arrive Bombs by antenov planes were dropped targeting the in Chukudum Catholic church, they missed the target but caused serious landslide from the nearby hill where they were falling. Since then Chukudum river became seasonal. 2002 HIV-AIDS and a Organized by NSCC reconciliatory meeting between Didinga and SPLA 2003 ADRA came back to Budi County Established revolving fund for giving development loans. development committee formed (CDC) 2004 CDOT started drilling boreholes 2005 Signing of peace Reconstruction of South Sudan in pre-interim period. agreement in Nairobi
2.2.2 Trend Lines This temporal data gathering tool helped to determine the trend of change of key community resources and issues over time. During group discussions the community was able to show
14 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills and draw on the ground crude graphs which show the trend of different resources and issues over the last fifty years since Sudan became independent from the British.
The purpose of this tool was to gather information about the state of NR in terms of quantity and quality over time. Justification of the behaviour of these resources was later found to be of importance in problems analysis.
The field team and the community members identified key issues/resources, focusing on their importance to the community. Some of the key resources included water, forests, livestock, land size, wood fuel and even cash crop sales. After that a time was agreed on when to start monitoring the trend of a given resource/issue. At this stage a matrix is drawn on the ground and a criterion on how to monitor the trend is agreed on. Once the starting time is agreed on, a score line is fixed. It can be from 1-5 points, which the community can assign by using sticks or stones.
Trend lines of major issues/resources over time in Budi County.
Figure 5: Trend line of the civil war
This figure shows that the civil war has been steadily increasing up to its climax in 1999 after which peace initiatives led to the signing of a peace agreement in 2005 in Nairobi.
15
Drylands Coordination Group
Figure 6: Trend line of cattle rustling (Raiding) Note that raiding has always been present. It seems to be increasing, even after the signing of peace, because some people want to take advantage of lawlessness in the country before law and order is put in place.
Figure 7: Trend line of Forests Note the decline of forests because of cutting down of trees without any replanting. As seen below, this decline has also affected the water sources.
16 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
Figure 8: Trend line of water Sources, mainly the rivers
The above figure shows the trend of the situation of water sources, mainly rivers. The rivers have reduced in volume; some have dried up leading to low water volumes.
Figure 9: Human Population Trend in Budi County
The above figure shows population trend during the last forty years. The 1999 crisis recorded the least population when there was evacuation. After that population has been increasing as refugees returned back.
Overall discussions based on trend lines helped in the identification of some of the NRM problems which the community might have encountered in the past, how they tackled them and how the situation is currently. The trend lines also provided indication on possible solutions/opportunities the community might have applied to tackle problems related to NRM.
Data gathered by this tool was used during problems analysis to determine coping strategies to some problems and ultimately during the development of NRM strategic and action plans.
17
Drylands Coordination Group
2.2.3 Seasonal Calendar The purpose of a seasonal calendar as a time related data gathering tool was to establish cycles or patterns of activities and occurrences within Budi community over a given timeframe. A one year timeframe was found to be most appropriate for Budi communities as most happenings including NRM activities by the communities revolve around a one year period.
This exercise was conducted during group discussions; the tool was first explained and the timeframe for the seasonal calendar agreed upon. The community members were first asked to give information in regard to seasonality of the county, i.e. when the rains fall and the names of different seasons experienced over the one year timeframe.
Other parameters included times for land preparation, planting, weeding and harvesting. For most of the activities discussed, local communities were asked to indicate gender involvement in order to show whether certain activities are done by men, women or both.
PARAMETE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
RAINS
SEASONS DRY-TAGITH Rain -Lolo Ura-Lomoti-Harvesting LAND PREP.
M &W PLANTING M& W
WEEDING W W
HARVESTIN G
LIVESTOCK CBP DISEASES Wor ms &Ticks Foot & Mouth ECF
HUMAN DISEASES Malaria Men ingitis
FESTIVALS
Figure 10: Seasonal Calendar of activities in Budi county KEY: M-Men, W-Women, CBPP- Cattle Borbhine and Pneumononia disease, ECF- East Coast Fever.
Information generated by this tool was important because it enabled the local communities and the research team to know the appropriate times when certain interventions in regard to NRM can be appropriately introduced.
Data generated during the drawing of the seasonal calendar as seen above was fairy rich, especially in terms of what came out from the discussions during the process. For example, seasonal calendar data provided information on opinions and attitudes of the community
18 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills towards certain phenomena, issues and activities. These included attitudes towards gender allocation of labor, gender ownership and control of certain resources particularly food resources. It also showed how much the community depends on existing natural resources to meet their needs by using locally available food resources, and what the community has to produce seasonally.
2.3 SOCIAL DATA ON ENVIRONMENT AND NRM IN BUDI
Social data on environment and NRM in Budi county was collected through group discussions and interviews. This includes all the information that is related to the people and their environment, including the entire local and outside institutions that relate with them in one way or the other.
The tools applied to collect such information were:
Institutional Analysis Livelihood Mapping Gender analysis activity profile
2.3.1 Institutional Analysis This tool was used to gather information about institutions that exist within the Budi communities, including outside institutions as long as they were involved in issues to do with environment and NRM.
N.B.: Before the analysis of the institutions, participants agreed to understand the meaning of an institution as “Any establishment within or outside Budi, as long as it is represented by a local community member, and has contributed in one way or another to the well-being of the Budi community”.
The Purpose of institutional analysis was to: • Learn about the institutions that exist in Budi and their activities; • Understand how the community views these institutions and how they rank them according to the community perception of their contribution towards NRM and development in general.
Institutional analysis was carried out during the group discussion meeting which involved a large cross section of the community representatives. The purpose was to ensure that a wide range of institutions active within the county are included. After introduction of the exercise the following institutions (see table 3) and their activities were mentioned.
19
Drylands Coordination Group
Table 3: List of Institutions and their activities in Budi County Institution Activities within Budi County Remarks
Agriculture Agricultural Extension One county agricultural coordinator under SRRC, Extension officers in each payam, not paid any salary, not formally trained, little impact. Forest No Forestry activity in place since One forestry coordinator NCA left. under SRRC. Not paid any salary, no extension officers, no impact. NPA Health programs, roads Donor funded, high impact on community. Education Pre-primary and primary education, One education coordinator under SRRC, 13 primary schools in the county. CDS Crops Seeds multiplication Local NGO, not funded, offer voluntary services. CDOT Evangelism, Drilling of bore holes, At least one bore hole in each Roads and education. payam, rehabilitation of some roads, lack of funds. ADRA Human health (PHCCs, PHCUs), Donor funded programs, high Livestock vaccination, water and impact. Inadequate and/or sanitation activities, global malaria Lack of funds to implement program. more programs/planned programs/needed. A.I.C Evangelism and education Has one church and a nursery school. E. C. S Evangelism Only church. C.D.C County development, revolving fund Operates under SRRC, no guarantee for the loans they give. High rate of defaulting. Galcholo and Promoting peace, food for work, water Peace initiatives between Kidepo valley harvesting (Kimatong). Logirs, Buyas and Didingas. peace and Dev. Raids/cattle rustling still on. Initiatives2 SRRC County administration, Relief and No government funding, rehabilitation. depend on donors, staff not paid any salary.
During discussion and listing of the institutions and their activities, institutional representatives present were given a chance to talk about their institutions. The institutions’ representatives also mentioned challenges that face their institutions and made suggestions on what should be done for their success to be fully realized.
2 Galcholo for the Buyas and Kidepo for the Didingas are local institutions which work with the other customary institutions to solve all local issues including those related to land tenure, dowry negotiations, etc.
20 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
2.3.2 Ranking of the listed institutions After the community members exhausted the list of institutions, the next step was to rank the institutions. The ranking was based on impact the institutions have, on NRM and their contribution to the development of the community. The approach used to rank the listed institutions was the pair-wise ranking matrix in which institutions are paired and compared (see Figure 11).
CDS FOR AGR SRRC CDOT AIC GALch ADRA E.C.S CDC NPA EDUC P R T A S N K CDS CDS AGR SRRC CDOT CDS GALch ADRA CDC CDC NPA EDUC 4 9
FORE AGR SRRC CDOT CDS GALch ADRA ECS CDC NPA EDUC 0 12 STRY AGRI SRRC CDOT AGRI AGRIC ADRA AGRI AGRIC NPA EDUC 6 7 C SRRC SRRC SRRC SRRC ADRA SRRC SRRC NPA EDUC 8 3
CDOT CDOT CDOT ADRA CDOT CDOT NPA CDOT 8 5 AIC GALch ADRA AIC * NPA EDUC 1 10 GALC ADRA GALch CDC NPA EDUC 4 8 HOLO ADRA ADRA ADRA ADRA ADRA 1 1 1 E.C.S CDC NPA EDUC 1 11 CDC NPA EDUC 4 6 NPA NPA 1 2 0 EDUC 8 4
Figure 11: Pair-wise Ranking matrix of Institutions CDC = County Development Committee
Ranked Institutions:
No.1. ADRA No.7. Agriculture No.2. NPA No.8. Galcholo No.3. SRRC No.9. CDS No.4. Education No.10. A.I.C No.5. CDOT No.11 E.C.S No.6. CDC No.12. Forestry
Ranking of institutions as shown above is an indication of the way in which institutions are seen by the community based on their impact on NRM and development. The ranking of institutions this way can help other institutions and even the new government of Sudan to identify which institutions are most reliable as entry points, in as far as implementation of the projects in the county.
2.3.3 Livelihood Mapping Livelihood Mapping is the process which involves identification of all the basic life support resources of the community and their sources within or outside the community.
21
Drylands Coordination Group
The main aim of livelihood mapping was to understand and learn from the community what the local community considered as important resources in their livelihoods and whether or not, these resources are available in sufficient quantities. Absence of basic livelihood resources was an indication of an NRM problem.
To conduct a livelihood mapping, the community members were asked to list all the resources they considered most important for their livelihood. Once a resource was mentioned it was discussed at length before it was listed. The line of discussion was whether the resource is really a basic livelihood need or not. For example, one community member mentioned tobacco but after a lengthy discussion, tobacco had to be dropped from the list. Each of the agreed resource was written on a card, and after the listing was exhausted, the final list of all the resources agreed upon and written on cards was verified. The next step was to investigate from the community whether all the listed resources were available in sufficient quantities within Budi county.
A large circle or an oval shape representing the community boundary was drawn on the ground and the cards containing the names of the resources listed were given to the community to place them accordingly in the circle representing the `map' of the community. The community members were able to place the cards inside, outside or between the boundaries of their county depending on: • Whether a particular resource was available within the community boundary and in sufficient quantities. • Whether it was partially available in insufficient quantities within the community. • Whether it is completely unavailable within the community and has to be acquired from outside.
All the resources available within the community were placed inside the ‘map’. All the resources partially available were placed on the border line of the ‘map’. The resources completely unavailable within the community were placed outside the 'map' as shown in Figure 12.
Livelihood mapping was used as an indirect way of investigating the needs and desires for particular resources. The livelihood mapping process accorded the Budi community a chance to discuss issues concerning the problems they encounter in obtaining some of the resources.
Suggestions on how to solve these problems were also discussed. Moreover, the process made it easy for communities to discuss openly certain sensitive issues such as cattle rustling and grazing management of livestock.
The result of this exercise served as a demonstration of the critical resources that the community needs, and from where they are obtained.
22 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
É Å Ç
SOAP , W ATER, GRASS MILK CLOTHES FIREW OOD TIMBER FARM, TOOLS MEAT , EGGS, BUILDING NA ILS CE MENT BEA NS, SORGHUM STONES MATCHES, EGGS MANG OES BREAD, COCOA, SWEET CASSAVA BANANAS COFFE E POT ATOES MAIZE VEGETABLES B ICYCL ES MI LLET F RUITS FISH PAR AFFIN , SALT HER BS T EA, SUG AR SU GAR, I RON SHEET S DRUG S
KEY: Å Resources obtained wholly within Ç Resources obtained partly within É Resources obtained wholly from outside
N.B. Eggs appear in both categories 1 and 2, because this study was informed that eggs are available within the community but not traditionally for consumption but for hatching into chickens, so eggs are never found in the local markets. Thus, institutions operating in Chukudum like ADRA and NPA have to import their eggs for consumption from Kenya although indigenous chickens are locally available in plenty.
Figure 12: Livelihood Map of Budi County
23
Drylands Coordination Group
2.3.4 Gender analysis in NRM This study also considered gender as an important issue in NRM efforts. Gender defined as the division of people and their activities based on sex e.g. men, women, girls, and boys could play a very important role on the way natural resources are managed. A gender activity profile was used to do gender analysis of existing roles/activities and responsibilities in Budi county.
This gender analysis tool was used since women participants were very few throughout the group discussion meetings i.e. an average of six women against more than twenty men, attended the meetings. It is important to note that traditionally, women in South Sudan, though highly overworked, are still highly subjugated and under the subjection of men; however, those who have had exposure, especially those who had been refugees outside the country are fighting this anomaly very serious. This was confirmed in the study from the few women who persistently attended all the group discussions.
During the day the gender analysis exercise was to be conducted, efforts were made in advance for the local women to be encouraged to turn up in large numbers; however, only eight turned up. From prior observation, it was felt that it might not be proper to separate men from women, one reason being that we did not have a lady who could facilitate the exercise with the women alone; secondly, fear of how the local men would react, when their women are being interviewed separately. However, using the gender activity profile tool, in mixed group discussions, women were courageous enough to assert themselves and resisted whenever men tried to dominate.
The group was asked to list down all the NRM activities that are common in their area. After that, they were asked to indicate, for each activity who in most cases is responsible for what. For each activity listed, both men and women participated in discussing and agreeing on who was responsible for a given activity, as shown in the table below.
24 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
Table 4 : Gender Activity Profile Analysis
ACTIVITY How the Activity RESPONSIBLE Relates to NRM MEN WOMEN Collection of firewood Cutting of trees and W shrubs Cutting of grass for Loss of biomass, W thatching erosion, accidental fires Grinding of grain for Time consuming/no W flour(food processing) time for other NRM activities Cooking Use of fuel, water, W trees, Agric. Produce. Fetching water Time consuming and W exhausting water resources if no conservation measures taken. Digging Loosening and M W aerating soil 1st Weeding Weeds control W Planting Food production M W 2nd Weeding Weeds control W Harvesting Time consuming, post W harvest losses leading to food insecurity. Construction Cutting of trees/use of M W (Buya) soil Grazing Loss of grass, M W compaction of soil Mining of gold Excavation M W 5 (28%) 13 (72%)
From the above table, it was clear that most activities in most traditional rural societies, Budi included, are managed along gender lines. Of the fifteen basic NRM and household activities listed, women performed 13 or 78% of all the NRM related activities while men perform only 5 or 22% of the activities. This exercise confirmed that gender roles and division of labor based on gender are still pronounced and that women are really overworked.
In Buya, as in many other rural African societies (Makenzi, 2003), most household related activities/chores were culturally done by women not men including construction of the huts in some cultures like that of the Buyas. This type of gendered roles poses a problem of unfairness in modern development endeavors, because modern development considers gender equality as key to sustainable development. The study found that many community development activities which are supposed to be performed by both men and women are still being done by women alone. In one community water project where water was harvested from rocks, the author confirmed that there were more women involved than men. The men are now idle since traditionally men’s work mainly consisted in looking after the cattle,
25
Drylands Coordination Group hunting and raiding. However, things have now changed, the cattle have lessened, there is no wildlife to hunt and raiding is not very common and easy since everyone seems to be armed. Simply put, the old way of doing things have changed but the Buya men do not seem to have changed; therefore, they spend most of their time unoccupied.
Based on the facts presented above, discussion on the gender issues in terms of allocation of duties had to be carefully introduced with questions on the general feelings by the community with regard to the gender imbalance within the communities. In such a case, it was necessary for the field team to be aware of the cultural norms in order to be able to observe and respect them. Introducing gender awareness this way helped the community to begin examining itself. Are men or women overburdened with NRM under the pretext of outdated cultural practices? Can there be any positive changes in gender roles without offending the community? Who should initiate such changes? These are some of the questions the community was asked in the process of undertaking the exercise. The answer to these questions lies with the community itself, whether they are ready to change with time. The overburdened women did not to seem to be bothered much though; this calls for gender equality awareness. If women spend all their time undertaking household activities and are at the same also supposed to contribute towards NRM activities, they will be overwhelmed and not much in terms conservation will be realized.
At the end of the exercise, there was some consensus that men should take up some of the activities which are not seriously culturally restricted to women.
26 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
3. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENT AND NRM ISSUES IN BUDI
During the study of NRM in Budi specifically of the Didinga and Buya Hills several participatory tools were applied to collect data that was meant to lead to NRM and environmental degradation problems. Data collected using all the tools applied, including spatial, temporal and social data collection tools, was qualitatively analysed with full participation of the community leaders. Presentation and discussion of data collected using the tools were facilitated in such a way to enable the community to discover themselves problems related to environment and NRM.
All the information which had been collected and recorded in manila papers and newsprints was displayed and presented to the community by their fellow community members who had worked with the research team. The community members in attendance were then asked to study the data and list all the environment and NRM problems which had been identified during the study (see Figure 13).
3.1 NRM PROBLEMS ANALYSIS
After listing the NRM problems that affect the communities, the next step was to analyze each of them in order to investigate the causes, how the community had been copping with these problems and what they suggested could be the final solution to the problems. This exercise referred to as problems analysis was done as shown in the figure below.
Table 5: Problem Analysis
PROBLEMS CAUSES COPING SOLUTION/ STRATEGIES OPPORTUNITY Raiding Dowry/marriage, idle Settling on hilltops, Peace talks negotiate for youth, revenge, greed, hitting back. low dowry rates and for prestige, possession of other dowry alternatives. guns. Erosion Overgrazing, cultivation Use of some fearful Train in improved soil on steep slopes, cutting of Taboos, such as not conservation techniques. trees. grazing on some Dig terraces, use trash lines areas because there without burning. Plough are some invisible along the contours. ghosts in the form of snakes, etc.(people are now armed with guns and do not fear such things).
Livestock diseases Ticks, fleas, lice, dirty Use of local herbs Dig dips, vaccinate, avail water and other indigenous clean water livestock treatment methods Inadequate water Droughts, clearance of Walking long Dig bore holes, rehabilitate forests, siltation of distances, digging springs, dig earth dams, dams/lakes shallow wells. plant trees and conserve
27
Drylands Coordination Group
forest.
Inadequate food Droughts, poor agricultural Wild fruits and Train extension officers, (hunger-gaps) practices, poor storage vegetables, hunting. and farmers on proper Collection of doum agricultural methods e.g. palm (coconut from contour and timely Kidepo valley plouging planting, use of short period maturing crops (see recommendations page 43). IDP Civil war, hunger Bearing with IDP Repatriate or settle them up
Lack of and poor War, lack of government Walking on foot, use Digging new roads, roads food for work to rehabilitation, Grading, repair road Tarmac
Drug abuse by Idleness, stress, loneliness, Bearing with them Create laws, Arrest and youth frustration persecute, counsel, create employment Lack of wildlife War, uncontrolled hunting Depend on green Relocate wildlife back from (for hunting) vegetables, DRC, Uganda & Kenya, domesticated enact wildlife laws, disarm, livestock, e.g. and establish eco-tourism. chicken.
Deforestation Clearing forests for Use of taboos (e.g. Enact forestry laws, to bar cultivation, cutting trees in some forest forest clearance and for settlement reserves, it is said cultivation on steep slopes. that there are ghosts Establish a forest which struggle tree department, establish tree cutters whenever nurseries to avail tree they go in the seedlings for planting, forests) and gun- employ and train forest shots to scare. guards
Lack of proper War, lack of proper Trade under trees, Create local currency, markets government batter trade. identify suitable sites for market centers, build roads and make peace with neighboring counties
28 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
3.2 PROBLEMS RANKING
After problems analysis, the problems were ranked based on their severity and how far they impacted the community and the environment in general. The tool used to rank the problems was the pair-wise ranking matrix shown in figure 13.
Liv. Inad. Insuf. Lck. Drug Poor Raids Eros. Dis. water Food Wildlife IDP Abuse Roads Defor. Lmkts PTS RANK Raids (R) R R R R R R R R R R 10 1 Erosion (ER) ER ER ER ER ER DA ER DF ER 7 3 Livestock Diseases (LD) LD IF LD LD LD PR DF LD 4 7 Inadequate water W W W W W DF W 6 4 Insufficient food (W) IF IF IF PR DF IF 5 6 Lack of wildlife (LW) LW LW PR DF Lm 2 9 IDP DA PR DF LM 0 11 Drug abuse (DA) PR DF LM 2 10 Lack/Poor roads (PR) DF PR 6 5 Deforestation (DF) DF 9 2 Lack of Markets (LM) 4 8
Figure 13: Pair-wise Ranking Matrix of NRM problems in Budi County
The pair-wise ranking matrix shown above, entails pairing all the listed NRM problems in a chart, and facilitating the community to identify a pair of problems at a time, debate on that pair and agree on which of the two problems was more severe. For example, when the problem of raids was compared with the erosion problem, the community felt that raids were more severe a problem for them than erosion, that is why R-for raids is shown in the matrix chart.
Scoring of points for each problem depended on how many times that problem was mentioned as worse than the one it was being compared with. The problem mentioned most times as worse than the others was ranked to be the most severe problem which then needed urgent actions to be alleviated.
The list of the ranked problem as shown in the matrix is as follows: Problems: No.1. Raiding (Cattle rustling) No.7. Livestock diseases No.2. Deforestation No.8.Lack of markets No.3. Erosion No.9. Lack of wildlife (for hunting) No.4. Inadequate water No.10. Drug abuse
29
Drylands Coordination Group
No.5. Insufficient food No.11. IDP - Internally Displaced Persons No.6. Poor/lack of roads
Box no. 2: Water problem in Ngarich
The Hidden Secret about Lake Kidobol in Ngaric Payam In analyzing the water problem in Ngarich, a significant event worth mentioning about the condition of lake Kidobol happened during the transect visit to this payam. This incident confirmed that the water problem in Ngarich is so severe that the community would rather lie to outsiders that their only water resource is actually useless so that it is not interfered with in any way. The purpose of our transect visit to Ngarich was to find out what opportunities lake Kidobol offered. This lake had been indicated in the community sketch map and considered as one of the solutions to water problems experienced by the Buya community. Unfortunately, as the field team came to learn later, the potential of this lake and its opportunities were supposed to remain a secret, strictly guarded under local clan arrangement.
Origin of Lake Kodobol During an interview with an old man on site, it was explained that the lake was formed from a small hole which had been dug by an ant-bear (kodobol) in pursuit of ants to eat. In 1987, the lake, all of a sudden, disappeared completely and the ant-bear hole was left gaping but without water. The local community then dug, enlarged and deepened the hole. In 1994 all of a sudden water gushed out of the dug hole and the lake formed again filling and covering an area of about 500M width by 1500M length.
Before visiting the lake, we had been told by the payam chief that the lake was actually salty. When we reached the lake and the author tasted the water, we discovered it was a freshwater lake, but the author had to be reprimanded for having made this discovery. Later we discovered that the community, as a strategy to protect the lake from outsiders’ interference had agreed to lie and say that the lake is salty. The community keeps guards to ensure that outsiders do not discover the secret about the lake being fresh, something which for a long time had remained a sacred secret for the Buya of Ngarich payam.
30 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
4. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS
This section discusses the major findings of this study, which focused on environment and NRM problems and the scope of environmental degradation in Budi county and discussed the farmers’ perceptions of environmental problems and the associated copping strategies for NRM.
The scope of environment and NRM problems referred to the seriousness and spread of the problems in Budi county while perception of NRM and environmental problems referred to whether the farmers appreciated that environmental problems existing in their county and whether they were worsening or not. Environmental and NRM problems discussed in this section fall under three items, namely: 1. Environmental and natural resource management problems in the payams where the communities are agro pastoralists. 2. Environmental and NRM problems in the nomadic pastoral communities in Budi county. 3. General perception of environmental and NRM problems by farmers in Budi county and their copping strategies.
4.1 NRM PROBLEMS IN THE AGRO-PASTORAL AREAS
Agro-pastoral areas referred to those payams where the communities are involved in livestock as well as crop production.
This sub-section expounds on the results of environment and NRM problems as expressed by the local communities through participatory resource mapping, transects and focus group discussions. The areas where agropastoralism dominates include Komiri, Nahichot, Lauro and Loudo. The dominant community in these payams are the Didingas. Many of them have settled mainly on the slopes and on top of the hills east of Chukudum; the hills west of chukudum are not settled because of the Logir raiders. These hilly areas in the east provided refuge during the prolonged civil war and the constant raids from the neighboring communities. The main environment and NRM problems here include the degradation of soils due to poor farming methods coupled with soil erosion and deforestation. The author found out that farmers had a detailed understanding of the resources in their payams, the environmental trends, the environment’s changing status and associated NRM problems. There is a general consensus by the majority of community members interviewed, especially the Didinga agro-pastoralist that environmental problems are worsening in the last twenty years. This was confirmed during the transect exercises when the team visited and saw the scope of environmental degradation and other NRM problems (see transect diagram in Figure 3 for more details).
4.2 ENVIRONMENT AND NRM PROBLEMS IN PASTORAL PAYAMS OF BUDI
Pastoral areas refer to those payams where the communities’ major occupation is livestock pasturage, with very little crop farming (rarely cultivating temporally farms of millet).
This sub-section discusses environment and NRM problems as expressed by the local communities through participatory resource mapping, transects and focus group discussions.
31
Drylands Coordination Group
The areas where pastoralism dominates include Lotukei, Ngarich and Kimatong. The dominant communities in these payams are the Buyas living in Ngaric and Kimatong while Didinga pastolists are in Lotukei.
Spatial and social PRA tools were used to get the communities in these payams to identify what they perceived as environmental and NRM problems. The main environment and NRM problems observed included water, persistent droughts, overgrazing, livestock diseases and raids (cattle rustling).
One lesson learnt during problems analysis was that contrary to the belief that pastoral communities are ignorant, they actually have a clear vision of their major environmental and NRM problems. Many of the pastoralists interviewed also had ideas about long-term solutions and they have devised strategies for copping with their problems which need just a slight adjustment to be able to adequately serve as permanent solutions.
4.3 FARMERS’ PERCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENT AND NRM PROBLEMS IN BUDI COUNTY
As observed earlier in this report, it is true that Budi county has undergone a considerable degree of environmental degradation; this came out clear from the investigation of local community’s ’ perception of the issue of environment and NRM problems. Before one can assess farmers’ response to this however, it was necessary to understand how farmers perceived the environmental problems. A majority of the farmers interviewed believed that the environment was the status of soil, plants, water and air. All these, they claimed have changed dramatically to the worse over the last 20 years. To gain more insight into the Budi farmers’ perception of NRM and environmental problems, the respondents were first asked to explain what they perceived as indicators of poorly managed environmental resources. The research question posed to farmers was as follows: What are the indicators of a poor and unproductive land resource?
In answering the research question on what the farmers perceived to be indicators of poor unproductive land, both the pastoralists and agro-pastoralists listed eight indicators shown in the table below. All the eight major indicators of poor land were also seen as key environment and NRM problems, these were: eroded lands, low crop yields and bare land devoid of vegetative cover. As they were mentioned in that way by the majority of the respondents, the author concluded that they were the main problem indicators. All these indicators when analyzed were found to be either real NRM problems or causes of other environmental problems. This came out clearly during problems analysis. The payams most affected by each environment and NRM problem were also mentioned.
32 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
Table 6: Indicators of poor and unproductive land
Indicators of poor land Payams most affected Bare land (no mulch or vegetative cover) Kimatong, Ngarich, Lotukei Cleared trees Nahichot, Lauro, Loudo, Komiri Highly eroded (loss of top soil) Nahichot, Loudo, Lauro Infertile soils Nahichot, Loudo, Lauro Arid/drought stricken Kimatong, Ngarec, Lotukei Gullies Lotukei, Kimatong, Ngaric Appearance of strange weeds Nahichot, Loudo, Lauro Declining crop production All payams
The above table shows that all the indicators of poorly managed land are either the sign of lack of proper natural resources management practices; or at the same time resulting from environmental degradation by nature.
In order to investigate farmers’ perception of environmental problems, the farmers were asked to list resource management problems and their attributes or causes.
The results of this study showed that farmers viewed the causes of environmental problems from two perspectives: those that are due to natural phenomena, and those that are consequences of human related activities and processes including poor or lack of NRM due to civil war, raids, culture and political instability. However, the majority of the causes of problems were those attributed to human activities, only drought and floods could accurately be pointed as natural causes of environment and NRM problems. The other main issue that needs to be looked at seriously is that of over-dependence on natural/land resources without their management. The Budi community agreed that it has never occurred to them that it was important to plant trees. They believed that trees should grow naturally. This coupled with a long period of civil war and cattle rustling (raids) where the communities were forced to settle and undertake farming practices on the hills have intensified environmental problems due to cultivation and grazing on ecologically nonviable areas. Also, due to a natural phenomenon arising from the climatic change and other environmental problems, for example droughts and floods have become prevalent.
The four most commonly perceived environmental problems were termed as: decrease in soil fertility; increase in weeds/ pests; and decrease in forage due to overgrazing and soil erosion. These problems were not only visible or physically manifested on the land, but rather are perceived as indicators of early stages of expected environmental problems such as poor yields and disappearance of topsoil. For each of these problems, farmers reported on strategies they use to cop with them. Farmers referred to all their NRM practices as coping strategies for environmental problems they face.
N.B.: Most community members interviewed in regard to whether they were putting enough efforts to solve the environmental problems were cautious to indicate that even if they were, their efforts were not meant to solve all the environmental problems. Some curiously responded to the question on why they preferred talking about coping rather than solving the problem by saying “that environmental problems are part of the environment itself (meaning the natural causes) and getting rid of them is like getting rid of the environment so any attempt to rid environment of all its problems will always lead to creating more problems, so one would rather find ways of coping with the problems.”
33
Drylands Coordination Group
5. NRM STRATEGIC PLAN FOR BUDI COUNTY
After qualitatively analyzing all the data gathered during the study, identifying all the major environment and NRM problems in Budi County, analyzing the problems and ranking them, the next step was to facilitate the community members to strategically plan how to start solving the problems identified. Strategic planning entailed looking at the analyzed ranked and discussed NRM problems. Following this, the community members were facilitated to again discuss and prioritize the payams based on which are the ones most affected by the given problems. They were then to strategically propose the action to be taken to start solving that problem.
This exercise involved aspects of negotiation with the community members together with the respective payam administrators. This was done in order for them to appreciate the NRM problems in their areas and to suggest solutions for their immediate action.
Table 7: Strategic NRM plan for Budi County
Problem Location/Payam Strategic plans based on their viability Ranked based on severity of the impact of the problem 1. Lauro 1. Initiate peace negotiations with the warring 1. Raiding/Cattle 2. Komiri groups. rustling 3. Ngaric 2. Government to enact laws against raiding. 4. Kimotong 3. Disarm and ban illegal possession of arms. 5. Loudo 4. Establish and equip ant-stock theft units in 6. Lotukei all the payams. 7. Nahichot 5. Recruit and train ant-stock personnel 1. Nahichot 1. Form Village Development committee 2. Deforestation 2. Loudo with forestry subcommittee. 3. Lauro 2. Start tree seeds acquisition and 4. Lotukei establishment of tree nurseries. 5. Komiri 3. Start tree planting campaigns in all the 6. Ngaric payams. 7. Kimotong 4. NS government to enact forest protection laws. 5. Recruit and train forest guards 1. Lotukei 1. Form village development committee with 3. Erosion 2. Loudo soil erosion subcommittee. 3. Nahichoti 2. Establish agroforestry trees nurseries. 4. Lauro 3. NS government to enact agricultural 5. Komiri policies. Stop cultivation on steep slopes 6. Ngaric and along river banks. 7. Kimatong 4. Recruit and Train agricultural extension officers to train farmers on proper cultivation and digging of terraces. 1. Kimatong 1. Form village development water Sub- 4. Inadequate 2. Lotukei committee. Water 3. Lauro 2. Rehabilitate water sources (rivers in all 4. Ngaric the payams and de-silt Lake Kidobol in 5. Komiri Ngaric).
34 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
6. Loudo 3. Dig shallow wells and earth dams where 7. Nahichot possible. 4. Dig bore holes 1. Lauro 1. Form Village Development Roads Sub 5. Poor/lack of 2. Loudo committees. Roads 3. Nahichot 2. Rehabilitate roads: i) from Chukudum to 4. Kimatong Nahichot; ii) Lotukei through Chukumu 5. Lotukei to Kimatong; iii) Lotukei-Himan- 6. Ngarich Kakurotom (new site). 7. Komiri 3. Construct feeder Roads: Loudo to Lauro to Nahichot. 1. Kimatong 1. Form village development Agriculture 6.Inadequate Food 2. Lotukei Sub committee. 3. Lauro 2. Train farmers in better farming methods. 4. Komiri 3. Expand farm sizes and introduce ox- 5. Ngaric ploughing. 6. Loudo 4. Use proper seeds and organic manure. 7. Nahichot 5. Plant fast maturing crops. 1. Nahichot 1. Form village development sub committee 7. Livestock 2. Laudo on livestock. diseases 3. Komiri 2. Construct cattle dips. 4. Lauro 3. Introduce livestock vaccination programs. 5. Lotukei 4. Introduce control in livestock movements 6. Naric to curb spread of diseases. 7. Kimatong. All Payams 1. Enact wildlife conservation laws 8. Lack of wildlife 2. Relocate wildlife from the neighboring countries 3. Disarm illegal possession of arms 4. Recruit and train wildlife wardens. All Payams 1. Identify suitable sites for establishment of 9. Lack markets markets. 2. Create local currency 3. Built roads. Komiri 1. Initiate counseling centers. 10. Drug Abuse 2. Enact laws 3. Create job opportunities
35
Drylands Coordination Group
6. NRM COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN (CAP) AND IMPLEMENTATION
After the strategic plans, the next step was to discuss on how the NRM plans will be implemented. This was done during the final community workshop. The exercise entailed the development of the community Action Plan as presented in the table below. First, the problem is stated, then below it in the first column all the opportunities for that problem are listed, in the second column all actions meant to be taken to start solving the problem are listed, the third column gives a list of the resources that will be required, and in the fourth column is the answer on who will provide these resources or where they will come from. At this juncture if there are institutions present they can make commitments but the community is encouraged to take up the responsibility of taking the first initiative even if it entails approaching the institutions for the resources, which is why the word community appears first in all cases. In the fourth column the time to begin is stated and corresponds to when the first action to solve the problem will be taken if it is not on-going. Finally, the sixth column of the action plan as shown below shows the commitment of individuals to follow up of what has been agreed upon. The remark column contains any remark on any action that might need to be taken.
Table 8: Environment/NRM Management Community Action Plan. (E/NRM) Of Budi County 1. PROBLEM: RAIDING (CATTLE RUSTLING)
Opportunity Action Resources Who will provide Time to Who will Remarks begin follow up Peace and Farm VDC People Community/ADRA On going Peter To Convene reconciliatory (Peace stationery SPF (Sudan Peace Lomag the efforts committee) Venue Fund), Galcholo, Ovesta meetings/ Kidepo Valley and Lapora Inform the CDOT. Fred relevant Lothma. institutions. Law against Enact the Community New After July, Paul Loki To convene raiding law Sudan government 2005 pre- -SPLM meeting to Technical interim county discuss the people. period secretary issue. Stationery Venue Ant-stock theft Establish a People, units unit in each communicat payam, ion recruit and equipment, train youths. arms, vehicles. 2. DEFORESTAT ION Tree planting Form VDC People Community 3rd May, Martin To convene Tree seed with forestry Seeds, tools New Sudan govt. 2005 Opura- meeting on collection sub- Suitable SRRC the subject Tree nurseries committee. sites near forester Establish, water start tree sources. nurseries in every payam
36 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
Protect Forests Enact laws Technical County judiciary After July, County SRRC people 2005 pre- judge- secretary interim Gerevasio Paul Loki to period Amotan convene meetings on the issue. Recruit and People, Community After July, SPLM train forest experts, New Sudan govt. 2005 pre- secretary guards. facilitators, Relevant NGos and interim Paul Loki. training other donors. period material and equipment. 3. SOIL EROSION
Awareness Form Soil People Community On going SRRC Nelson to be conservation Stationery New Sudan Govt. But in Agric. convener of sub- Venue Relevant earnest after Coordinat meetings. committee NGO/CBO and July, 2005 or under VDC donors Nelson for Laban and awareness Augustino creation Lokonye. Soil conservation Start Seeds, tools Community After July, SRRC agroforestry and sites. New Sudan Govt. 2005 pre- Agric. nurseries Relevant interim Coordinat Dig terraces Tools, NGO/CBO and period or spades, donors Nelson jembes and ,, ,, Laban and Enact laws mattocks. County Judiciary Augustino to stop -Technical Lokonye cultivation people on steep Gerevasio slopes. Amotan. Extension Establish People, Community/ New After July, Agric. farmers’ training Sudan govt. 2005 pre- Coordinat training material interim or units. Train period Nelson extension Laban and officers to ,, ,, Augustino train Lokonye farmers, use indigenous knowledge
4. INADEQUATE WATER Water resource Form VDC People, Community, New 3rd may, SRRC management with water stationery, Sudan govt. 2005 sanitary/h And harvesting sub- venue. ealth committees coordinato r Simon King. Rehabilitate People, tools ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Rivers Dig dams Community, New Dig more Sudan govt. any bore holes other relevant
37
Drylands Coordination Group
NGO/CBO such as ADRA, CDOT, NPA etc. People, tools After July, PCA and Sudan govt. any 2005. Angelo De-silt and equipments other relevant Lobalu improve NGO/CBO and Kodobol donor. lake in Ngaric 5. POOR ROADS
Roads Form VDC People Community Sudan On-going. SPLM/SR management with roads Stationery, govt. any other In earnest RC sub- venue, relevant after July, officials committee logistics. NGO/CBO and 2005. Paul donors, ADRA, Lotuni NPA and Paul Longa Komiri- Rehabilitate, People, tools Community Sudan After July, ,, ,, ,, Nahichoti grade and equipments govt. any other 2005 Lotukei-Ngaric- fill with and relevant Kimatong gravel/tarma machines NGO/CBO and Lotukei- c donors, NPA Kakurotom (New Site) Feeder road Construct People, tools ,, ,,, ,,,, After July ,, ,,, ,, Loudo-Lauro- /Dig new equipments 2005. Nahichot roads and and grade machines 6. INSUFFICIEN T FOOD Food security Form a sub- People, Community and On-going SRRC- issues committee stationery the New Sudan Augustino under VDC and venues govt. Lokonye to handle and Paul food Loki security. Enhance Start soil People Community, New On-going SRRC- Appeal to agricultural management Farming Sudan govt. In earnest Agric. NPA, NCA production through equipments relevant after July Coordinat and ADRA Proper training proper NGO/CBO and 2005 ors to start of farmers in cultivation donors. Augustino agriculture modern and and use of Lokonye programs in traditional agric. manure. and Budi county Practices. Paul Loki Use short Hybrid ,, ,,, ,, After July, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, maturing seeds, 2005 ,, variety of Ox-ploughs crops. Train extension officer to train farmers. Establish farmers training
38 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
centers.
7. LIVESTOCK DISEASES
Management of Form a People Community, New After July, SRRC Convener of issues to do with Livestock stationery Sudan Govt, and 2005 Veterinary meetings. livestock sub- Venues any other relevant coordinato committee NGO and donors r-Luis under VDC. Lohitare. Use herbal Medicinal treatment for trees and ,, ,, ,, ,,, ,, ,, ,, diseases shrubs ,, ,, ,, ,, Dig dips People, tools Vaccinate fencing Confine in material fence/ranche s
8. WILDLIFE FOR HUNTING AND TOURISM Deliberation on Form a People, Community, New After July SPLM Convene wildlife issues wildlife sub- stationery, Sudan govt. 2005 secretary meetings on -Wildlife laws, committee venues Relevant wildlife relocation, under VDCs NGO/CBO and issues. protection and donors. tourism.
9. LACK OF MARKETS
Handling issues Form a sub- People, Community, New After July, SPLM To plan and to do with committee stationery, Sudan Govt. 2005 secretary convene establishment of under VDC venues Relevant in Budi. meetings. markets in all the to focus on NGO/CBO and payams markets donors establishme nt issues
39
Drylands Coordination Group
10. DRUG ABUSE
Discus, counsel, Form sub- People, Sudan Govt. After July, SPLM ,, ,,, ,,, creation of law committees stationery Relevant 2005 secretary and enforcement under VDC other NGO/CBO and to focus on logistics and donors causes and venues employment for youth
6.1 IMPLEMENTATION
The above community action plan was developed in a participatory manner, and thus its implementation could be immediate since some of the activities planned for are on-going; all that is needed is to formalize and streamline their implementation. Other activities could start soon after the exercise if some of the institutions or individuals present make a commitment to do so. In the case of Budi, some of the institutions and officials who were represented were able to make commitments in as far as the action to take on and start implementation immediately. The action plan also indicated through some commitment, who will provide some of the requirements and actions to realize the plans. the community was often mentioned since they were convinced that they have to take the first step, even if it is to ask for assistance. The date to start implementation of the plans and also who will follow up on what has been agreed upon was also stated. Furthermore, to ensure that implementation of the action plan starts as agreed, individual participants present and who are in relevant positions committed themselves by name to follow up some of the agreed actions to take. This is important for monitoring and evaluation purposes. Such individuals were to act as a reference contact persons through such a commitment.
N.B.: For the implementation of the action plan, this study suggests it is quite possible if there was consistency in follow-up. For example, armed with this report which was prepared in a participatory way at county level, formation of village sub-committees at payam level could be a very important starting point. This does not entail much, other than the payam administrators being facilitated to conduct a full community meeting and revisit issues/problems that are specific to that payam. In efforts to tackle the issues specific to the payam, then using a ‘bottom up” approach, integrated payam development sub-committees are formed with due consideration of their sustainability, equity and gender consideration. Although specialized trained human resources might be lacking in Budi, this study confirmed that there were adequate human resources locally who by using their indigenous knowledge are capable of providing leadership in tackling the local issues with little technical assistance from outside.
40 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The observations and the findings of the study were gathered from the local community and other stakeholders and examined the environment and natural resources management issues in Budi county in Equatorial region in South Sudan. The emphasis of the study was to determine the environment and NRM problems and their causes and scope in the Didinga Hills and ranges which cover almost 60% of the county. It can be concluded through the findings of the study that NRM problems exist in the study area and that the Didinga and Buya communities have not taken serious efforts to solve them. Rather, they have devised only copping strategies such as shifting cultivation, relocating to better areas whenever they degrade one and use of taboos. These strategies might not stand the tests of time, some of them cannot be sustained as reliable NRM practices. For example, people can no longer fear clearing a forest, just because of a taboo; they walk around with machine guns and even live grenades. Thus, some of the coping strategies need to be improved, changed or even eliminated, if they have to serve effectively as sustainable NRM practices.
Further, this study confirmed that the natural environment of Budi has worsened in the past 20 years, and continues to do so due to reliance on the coping strategies, instead of proper NRM practices which have been proved effective. There is therefore, the need for action to be taken towards ensuring that proper NRM practices are adopted. The main reason for the local community to continue relying on copping strategies could have been the uncertainty among many people on what the future holds for them, because of the long period of civil war, to the extend that even during the time this study was taking place, most local communities were not convinced that peace was already there and that there would soon be law and order in the country, which is why the trend of cattle raiding problem was showing signs of increase. In other words, all these factors deter them from thinking of permanent solutions to their other problems.
Secondly, the Budi community has not taken any steps towards proper NRM not only because of the instability problem, but also because of lack of capacity to train the locals in proper NRM. For example, the SRRC extension officers in agriculture and livestock exist in every payam, but they are not reliable to technically deliver effective extension services to both pastoral and agro-pastoral farmers due to lack of training. They need a lot of training themselves in order to be able to advise farmers on better farming methods. Of all the SRRC extension agents interviewed during the study, most of them were surprisingly more ignorant than farmers because they were trying to introduce modern farming practices which they themselves have not been fully trained in, apart from the little information they get from the quick organized workshops, most of which they forget before reaching their working stations. This study recommends that efforts be put in place to enhance the local capacity on proper NRM. At the stage of development in which South Sudan is in now and Budi county in particular, some form of farmer training centers should be established in every payam and experts deployed. Participatory tools should be applied to train the extension officers who in turn work with farmers in a participatory way to ensure that they conceptualize and apply proper NRM practices, where possible integrating indigenous knowledge systems with modern technologies.
Issues regarding conservation of environment through proper NRM in Budi county need to be looked at intensely now that many refugees are returning back to Sudan. Indeed, the natural resources might be overwhelmed by the many human activities taking place during this
41
Drylands Coordination Group reconstruction period. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that all the development plans guarantee sustainability of the natural environment.
This study found out that there are two causes of environmental degradation in the Didinga hills: natural causes and human causes as a result of lack or poor NRM. The latter contributed most to environmental degradation. Thus, the situation has been exacerbated by lack of action by the local people to stop or reverse the degradation.
It has been observed that environmental degradation if unchecked is bound to continue as a result of increased human activities. Given the demographic projections based on the return of refugees, there will be an increase in food demand, declining carrying capacity of the land, particularly in marginal areas, and overgrazing across huge tracts of rangeland. It is recommended that the strategic and NRM actions presented in this report be implemented and participatory monitoring and evaluation be done thereafter consistently.
It is also recommended that awareness on tree planting and agroforestry practices by the local communities be created, and that all the NGOS and other donor funded projects in Budi should include these aspects in their programs.
This study found out that raiding and cattle rustling were traditionally practiced as a cultural way of sharing wealth and enabling young men to acquire cattle to pay dowry. However, in the past there were some control measures in place to ensure that no serious harm was caused by this practice. With the influx of illegal arms and greediness to raid more cattle than one needs, this practise later turned out to be so dangerous especially to agro-pastoral communities that most agro-pastoral communities have had to settle on steep hill slopes and hilltops causing serious environmental degradation. It is recommended that the new government of South Sudan put in place laws and policies in respect to reducing raiding including putting in place sufficient mechanisms so that law and order is maintained. Other alternative ways of solving the raiding problem need to tried, for example, as agreed during the community workshop, one way could be reduction of dowry prices and or negotiation of an alternative form of dowry payments not necessarily cattle, but either money or other gifts. This study also found that there was no policy in place to control deforestation, including where to cultivate in respect to distances from river banks. Indeed, some farms extend up to the river-banks while other farmers cultivate on very steep slopes. Therefore, this study recommends that appropriate government policies be formulated. For example, a forest policy specifying in which areas trees should be cut and or conserved or an agriculture policy specifying up to what slope should cultivation be allowed and other policies dealing with protection of forests and wetlands should be enacted as a matter of priority by the New Sudan government.
Transfer of Technology • This study observed that some good agricultural projects had been initiated by NGOs who have since left, such as the NCA agroforestry project in Nahichoti. However, even though these technologies were good the farmers did not adopt them, since the farmers were not involved during the initiation. • This study confirmed the popularly held speculation by the modern development change agents that the reason for the frequent failure of the donor initiated environmental management projects is most likely due to lack of participation of the local communities and integration of their indigenous knowledge in the formulation
42 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
and implementation of the same. This study thus recommends that as New Sudan undergoes reconstruction the whole approach to technology transfer, including the introduction of new technologies in NRM, first be analyzed to find out how they complement the existing practices resulting from indigenous knowledge and that local farmers be fully involved in their initiation. Capacity enhancement in all forms should be given a priority for the New Government of South Sudan (GOSS); this can be done by availing specialized quick training opportunities for the returning refugees and also by conducting training workshops for local farmers and local extension officers. • Networking: For local capacity creation there is a need to enhance communication and networking amongst farmers locally, nationally and even regionally. It is recommended that mechanisms for local, national and regional information exchange be created at all levels from the national, regional, county to payam level. This will facilitate communication among farmers and advance the knowledge of both exogenous and indigenous NRM technologies. • It is therefore recommended that: Researchers, extension officers and NGO’s stimulate the formation of groups, clubs and/ or networks of experimenting farmers. These could take the form of study clubs in which farmers discuss specific problems they want to solve and work out solutions together. Subsequently, the group or club members can test the solutions on their own farms using their own various situations and conditions before communicating their results to the larger community.
43
Drylands Coordination Group
8. REFERENCES
Akol, J.P. 1958. “The nilotics and their cattle wealth”, El-Baittar (Sudan) 1:24-28. Brokensha, D., D. Warren and O. Werner (Eds). 1980. Indigenous Knowledge systems and development. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Brookfield, M. 1996. Indigenous knowledge: a long history and an uncertain future: a sequel to the debate (9). Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, 4(2). Online: http://www.nufficcs.nl/ciran/ikdm/.
Child, R.D. et al. 1984. Arid and semiarid lands: sustainable use and management in developing countries, Winrock International, Morilton.
IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development). 1995. PLA notes, notes on participatory learning and action. No. 24: Critical reflections from practice. Sustainable Agriculture Programme, IIED, London, UK. 90 pp.
Internet, 2003. Sudan People.
Johannes, R.E., Ed. 1989. Traditional Ecological Knowledge: A Collection of Essays. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, IUCN
Johannes, R.E. 1993. Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and management with environmental impact assessment. In Inglis, J., ed., Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases. International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge; International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada. pp. 3339.
Johannes, R.E., Ed.1993. Traditional Ecological Knowledge: A collection of essays. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, IUCN.
Kakonge, J.O. 1995. Traditional African values and their use in implementing Agenda 21. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, 3(2). Online: http://www. nufficcs.nl/ciran/ikdm/.
MAB. n.d. Human ecology: consultancy reports on the Rendille, Samburu and the role of women, IPAL technical report no. F-2, MAB/UNESCO, Nairobi.
Makenzi, P.M. 1994. Dying traditional cultures and beliefs, its impacts on the conservation of Natural Forests: A case of Nzambani location, Kitui district, Kenya. Nairobi: FAN/FTTP.
Makenzi, P.M. 1995.The Okiek: A case of a rural community managing Kenya’s natural forests. A PRA case study of commnity forestry in Nessuit sub-location, Nakuru distirct, Kenya. Nairobi: FAN.
Makenzi, P.M. & den Biggelaar, C. 1996. Towards a Synthetic R&E Praxis in Agroforestry in East Africa: Findings and Experiences of Four FTPP Case Studies in Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda. Paper prepared for the International Conference on Creativity and Innovation at the Grassroots, Ahmedabad, India, January 11-14, 1997.
44 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
Makenzi, P.M. 1996. Adoption of Traditional Land - use practices for Sustainable Management of Natural Resources: AN agroforestry Message to Famers through slides. Nairobi: FAN.
Makenzie, P.M. And Njoka E. M, 1996. A community's initiatives to survive in a semiarid area: The case of Kikapu, Njoro Location, Nakuru, Kenya. Nairobi: FAN.
Makenzi P.M. 2003. Makenzi, P.M. (2003). Indigenous Knowledge in Natural Resources Management in the ASALs: A Case of Biodiversity Conservation in Baringo, Kenya. PhD thesis. Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya, 98-118.
Morgan, W.T.W. 1981. “Ethnobotany of the Turkana: use of plants by a pastoral people and their livestock in Kenya”, Economic Botany 35(1):96-130.
NPA, 2004. Nowegian Peoples Aid Annual Report, NPA, Co-op Trust –Plaza, Nairobi, Kenya.
PRA Program, (2002): PRA Handbook for Field Practitioners. Participatory Rural Appraisal Program, Egerton University, Njoro, Kenya. Education Media Centre, Egerton University Publishers, 98-120. www. Sudan people.com.
Warren, M.D. 1997. Indigenous knowledge and education project -- CIKARD; Bono therapeutics in Ghana. Center for Indigenous Knowledge for Agriculture and Rural Development, Iowa State University, IA, USA. Online: http://www.physics.iastate.edu/cikard/bono.htm.
Zwahlen, R. 1996. Traditional methods: a guarantee for sustainability? Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, 4(3). Online: http://www.nufficcs.nl/ciran/ikdm/.
Zweifel, H. 1997. Biodiversity and the appropriation of women's knowledge. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, 5(1). Online: http://www.nufficcs.nl/ciran/ikdm/.
45
Drylands Coordination Group
9. ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS DURING THE FOUR DAYS OF COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
NAME TITLE 1. Mr. Agustino Ngolethia Calechist 2 Mr. Aithak Lomathe Community member 3 Mr. Alfred Lothia CDC Information officer 4 Ms. Anjila Nakang Community member 5 Mr. Antony Lojore Ext. worker 6 Mr. Antony Lokiru Ext.w. 7 Mr. Arkanjelo Naboho Farmer 8 Mr. Arkanjelo Tanyio Community member 9 Mr. Atiol lagu Agric Ext. worker 10 Mr. Auchio Paul Vet. Assist 11 Mr. Augustino Lokonyen Agric Coordinator 14 Ms. Blona Rapichio Community member 15 Mr. Ngustino Alex Kimatong 16 Mr. Clement A.Lobok C.D.S. member 17 Mr. Danilo Lopoho Kurimo Headmaster 18 Mr. Dominic Lotuli Ext. worker 19 Mr. Dominic Loturawas Ext.w 20 Mr. Dondo Lotukai Sub Chief 21 Ms. Elisabeth Anthony Community member 22 Mr. Emilio Paul Loki Commissioner-Budi 23 Mr. Ggustino Ngolettio Teacher 24 Mr. Grato Peter Lolojiikoi Community member 25 Mr. Isaac Lomante ‘’ 26 Hon. Mr. Joseph Loguma National Lib. Council 27 Mr. Joseph Nalaba Payam Chief Administrator 28 Ms. Juliata Nakang Ext.w 29 Mr. Leo Oreste Ext.Worker 30 Mr. Limo Akotho SPLM Ext. contractor 31 Mr. Lino Lokang CDS 32 Mr. Lino Lotiki Community member 33 Mr. Lokiru Raphael Ext worker 34 Mr. Luiuri Akoth ‘’ 35 Mr. Lujen Lokirimoi catechist 36 Mr. Luka Loliha Agric ext 37 Ms. Mario Acoda Community member 38 Mr. Martin Aporu SRRC-Forestry coordinator 39 Mr. Peter Lotyaro CC Elder 40 Mr. Peter Loki Halli Ex. Director- Budi County 41 Mr. Peter Bosco Lotyaro Chairman council of elders Budi county 42 Mr. Nakodongi Paul Agric Ext
46 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
43 Mr. Nakodongi john Student 44 Mr. Nelson Tabion SRRC secretary 45 Mr. Paul Lokiru Agric 46 Mr. Paul Lomeja A/E.O 47 Ms. Perino July Agriculture 48 Mr. Peter Lobal Ttamoi Agriculture 49 Mr. Peter Lobalu OX-plough farmer 50 Peter Lojam Ext. Worker 51 Ms. Piola Repicho Community member 52 Pr. (Mr.)George Okumu Modiki S.D.A.Church. 53 Ms. Regina Nadochi c/lady 54 Mr. Richard Lotimanimoi CPS Budi county 55 Ms. Rita Lojinio Community member 56 Ms. Rose Naboi Nursery School teacher
47
Drylands Coordination Group
List of Publications
Reports: 1 A. Synnevåg, G., Halassy, S. 1998: “Etude des indicateurs de la sécurité alimentaire dans deux sites de la zone d’intervention de l’AEN-Mali: Bambara Maodé et Ndaki (Gourma Malien)”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
1 B. Synnevåg, G. and Halassy, S. 1998: “Food Security Indicators in Two Sites of Norwegian Church Aid’s Intervention Zone in Mali: Bambara Maoudé and N’Daki (Malian Gourma)”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
2 A. Aune, J.B. and Doumbia, M.D. 1998: “Integrated Plant Nutrient Management (IPNM), Case studies of two projects in Mali: CARE Macina programme and PIDEB”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
2 B. Aune, J.B. et Doumbia, M.D. 1998: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV), Etude de Cas de deux projets au Mali: Programme de CARE Macina et PIDEB”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
3 A. Berge, G., Larsen, K., Rye, S., Dembele, S.M. and Hassan, M. 1999: “Synthesis report and Four Case Studies on Gender Issues and Development of an Improved Focus on Women in Natural Resource Management and Agricultural Projects”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
3 B. Berge, G., Larsen, K., Rye, S., Dembele, S.M. et Hassan, M. 1999. “Rapport de synthèse et quatre études de cas sur Les Questions de Genre et Développement d’une Approche Améliorée concernant les Femmes et les Projets d’Agriculture et de Gestion des Ressources Naturelles”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
4 A. Sydness, M., Ba, B. 1999: “Processus de décentralisation, développement institutionnel et réorganisation des ONG financées par la Norvège au Mali”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
4 B. Sydness, M. and Ba, B. 1999: “Decentralization Process, Institution Development and Phasing out of the Norwegian Involvement in Mali”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
5. Waktola, A. and Michael, D.G. 1999: “Institutional Development and Phasing Out of the Norwegian Involvement, the Case of Awash Conservation and Development Project, Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
6. Waktola, A. 1999: “Exploratory Study of Two Regions in Ethiopia: Identification of Target Areas and partners for Intervention”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
7. Mossige, A. 2000: “Workshop on Gender and Rural Development – Training Manual”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
48 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
8. Synnevåg, G. et Halassy, S. 2000: ”Sécurité Semencière: Etude de la gestion et de l’approvisionnement en semences dans deux villages du cercle de Ké-Macina au Mali: Kélle et Tangana”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
9. Abesha, D., Waktola, A, Aune, J.B. 2000: ”Agricutural Extension in the Drylands of Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
10. Sydness, M., Doumbia, S. et Diakité K. 2000: ”Atelier sur la décentralisation au Mali”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
11. N’Dior, P. A. et Traoré, N. 2000: ”Etude sur les programmes d’épargne et de crédit au Mali”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
12. Lode, K. and G. Kassa. 2001: ”Proceedings from a Workshop on Conflict Resolution Organised by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG), November 8-10, 2000 Nazareth, Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
13. Shiferaw, B. and A. Wolday, 2001: “Revisiting the Regulatory and Supervision Framework of the Micro-Finance Industry in Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
14 A. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2001: “Integrated Plant Nutrition Management (IPNM): Practical Testing of Technologies with Farmers Groups”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
14 B. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2001: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV): Tests Pratiques de Technologies avec des Groupes de Paysans”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
15. Larsen, K. and M. Hassan, 2001: “Perceptions of Knowledge and Coping Strategies in Nomadic Communities – The case of the Hawawir in Northern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
16 A. Mossige, A., Berkele, Y. & Maiga, S., 2001: “Participation of Civil Society in the national Action Programs of the United Nation’s Convention to Combat Desertification: Synthesis of an Assessment in Ethiopia and Mali”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
16 B. Mossige, A., Berkele, Y. & Maiga, S., 2001: “La Participation de la Société Civile aux Programme d’Actions Nationaux de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la Désertification”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
17. Kebebew, F., D. Tsegaye and G. Synnevåg., 2001: “Traditional Coping Strategies of the Afar and Borana Pastoralists in Response to Drought”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
18. Shanmugaratnam, N., D. Mamer and M. R. Kenyi, 2002: “From Emergency Relief to Local Development and Civil Society Building: Experiences from the Norwegian Peoples’ Aid’s Interventions in Southern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
19. Mitiku, H. and S. N. Merga, 2002. “Workshop on the Experience of Water Harvesting in the Drylands of Ethiopia: Principles and practices”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
49
Drylands Coordination Group
20. Tesfai, M., V. Dawod and K. Abreha, 2002. “Management of Salt-affected Soils in the NCEW ‘Shemshemia’ Irrigation Scheme in the Upper Gash Valley of Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
21. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2002: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV): Tests Pratiques de Technologies avec des Groupes de Paysans- Rapport de la Campagne 2001”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
22. Haidara, Y., Dembele, M. et Bacha, A. “Formation sur la lutte contre la désertification atelier organisé par groupe de coordination des zones arides (GCoZA) du 07 au 10 octobre 2002 à Gossi (Mali)”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
23. Aune, J. B. 2003. “Desertification control, rural development and reduced CO2 emissions through the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol - an impasse or a way forward?” Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
24. Larsen, K. and Hassan, M. 2003. “Sedentarisation of Nomadic People: The Case of the Hawawir in Um Jawasir, Northern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
25. Cissé, I. et Keita, M.S. 2003. “Etude d’impacts socio-économique et environnemental des plaines aménagées pour riziculture au Mali.” Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
26. Berkele, Y. and Mossige, A. 2003. “Indicators to Promote Civil Society’s (NGOs and CBOs) Participation in the implementation of Ethiopia’s National and Regional Action Programs of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. A guideline Document”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
26B. Berkele, Y. and Mossige, A. 2003. “Indicateurs visant à promouvoir la participation de la société civile (ONG et OCB) à la mise en oeuvre en Ethiopie des Programmes d’action national et régionaux de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la désertification”. Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
27. Assefa, F., Dawd, M. and Abesha, A. D. 2003. “Implementation Aspects of Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Policy and Extension Gap in Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
28. Haile, A., Selassie, D.G., Zereyacob, B. and Abraham, B. 2003, “On-Farm Storage Studies in Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
29. Doumbia, M.D., Berthé, A., Aune, J.B. 2003, “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV): Tests Pratiques et Vulgarisation de Technologies”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
30. Mossige, A. and M. Macina 2004, “Indicateurs visant à promouvoir et suivre la participation de la Société Civile (ONG et OCB) dans la mise en œuvre des Programmes d’Action National, Régional et Communal de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la désertification”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
31. Tesfay, Y. and Tafere, K. 2004. “Indigenous Rangeland resources and Conflict Management by the North Afar Pastoral Groups in Ethiopia. A Pastoral Forum Organized by the Drylands
50 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
Coordination Group (DCG) in Ethiopia, June 27-28, 2003, Mekelle, Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
32. Kebede, D. and Retta, S. 2004. “Gender, HIV/AIDS and Food Security, Linkage and Integration into Development Interventions”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
33. Kidane, A., Araia, W., Ghebremichael, Z, and Gobezay, G. 2004. “Survey on striga and crop husbandry practices in relation to striga management and control of sorghum (Sorghum bicholor) in the Goluge sub zone: Lessons to be learned and creating awareness”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
34. Kibreab, G., Berhane, T., and Ghezae, E. 2004. “A Study to Determine the Extent and Use of Environmental Impact Assessment of Agricultural Development Projects – A Case Study from Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
35. Meehan, F. 2004. “Female Headed Household in Tigray, Ethiopia. A Study Review”. Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
36. Doumbia, M. Berthe, A., Aune, J. B. 2005. “Integrated Plant Nutrient Management in Mali. Summary Report 1998-2004”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.
37. Kaya, B., Traoré, C. O., Aune, J.B. 2005. “Etude d’identification des prototypes d’EcoFermes au Mali. Rapport diagnostic et plan d’action pour 2005“. Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides, Maison de l’Environnement G9, Norvège.
38. Nedessa, B., Ali, J., Nyborg, I. 2005. ”Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management. A Case Study from Ethiopia”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.
39. Makenzi, P. 2005. “Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills. A Baseline Study from Budy County, South Sudan”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.
Proceedings: 1. Drylands Coordination Group. 2000. Seminar on the Formation of DCG Ethiopia-Sudan. Proceedings from a Seminar organised by the Drylands Coordination Group in Nazareth, Ethiopia, April 10-12, 2000. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
2. Drylands Coordination Group. 2001. Seminar on the Formation of DCG Eritrea. Proceedings from a Seminar Hosted by the National Confederation of Eritrean Workers (NCEW) in Asmara, Eritrea, March 26th-28th, 2001. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
3. Amha, W. 2001. Revisiting the Regulatory and Supervision Framework of the Microfinance Industry in Ethiopia. Proceedings from a Seminar Organised by the Relief Society of Tigray (REST), on behalf of the Drylands Coordination Group in Ethiopia and Sudan, In Mekelle, August 25, 2001. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
51
Drylands Coordination Group
4. Mossige, A. and Berkele, Y. 2001. Civil Society’s Participation in the National Action Program to Combat Desertification and Mitigate the Effects of Drought in Ethiopia. Proceedings from a Workshop organised by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) in Ethiopia, Debre Zeit, September 13-14, 2001. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
5. Maiga, S. et Mossige, A. 2001. Participation de la Société Civile dans la Mise en Oeuvre Programme d’action pour la Convention Sur la Désertification (CCD) au Mali. L’atelier Organise par le Groupe Coordination sur les Zones Arides (GCOZA) Au Centre Aoua Keita, Bamako, Les 5 et 6 novembre 2001. GCOZA/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
6. Drylands Coordination Group. 2002. Do conventions need civil society? A critical review of the role of civil society in the implementation of international conventions. Proceeding from a Seminar Arranged by the Drylands Coordination Group and Forum for Development and Environment (ForUM) in Oslo, January 15th, 2002. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
7. Berkele, Y. 2002. Workshop on training of trainers in UNCCD/NAP implementation in Ethiopia. Proceedings from a workshop arranged by the Drylands Coordination Group in Ethiopia, Nazareth, June 10-15, 2002, DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
8. Drylands Coordination Group. 2002. Sustainable livelihoods of farmers and pastoralists in Eritrea. Proceedings from a workshop organised by DCG Eritrea in National Confederation of Eritrean Workers Conference Hall, Asmara, November 28 –29, 2002. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University Of Norway, Ås.
9. Drylands Coordination Group. 2003. DCG networking seminar 2002, 15th-22nd November 2002, Khartoum, Sudan. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
10. Soumana, D. 2003. Atelier d’information, d’échange et de réflexion sur l’élargissement du Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides (GCoZA) au Mali, Au Centre Aoua Keita, Bamako, Les 18 et 19 février 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
11. Ati, H. A.and Nimir A. A. H. 2004. Training Course On The Role Of Local Institutions In Regulating Resource Use and Conflict Management, Um Jawaseer, June 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
12. Berkele, Y. and Ayalew, B. 2004. Training of Trainers in Implementation of UNCCD/NAP in Ethiopia. Third Round, 10-14 Nov. 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
13. Macina, M. 2004. Atelier National et Campagne d’Information et de Sensibilisation sur la CCD. Un Atelier organisé par la Coordination des Associations et ONG Féminines au Mali (CAFO) en partenariat avec le Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides (GCoZA). Les 29-30 novembre 2004 à Bamako, Mali. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
14. Musnad, H.A. and Nasr N. K. 2004. Experience Sharing Tour and Workshop on Shelterbelts and Fuel Wood Substitutes in Sudan. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
15. Gakou, M. 2005. Atelier d’information et de formation des ONG membres de GCoZA sur le montage des projets/ synergie entre les conventions de la génération de Rio et de la convention de Ramsar. Le 28 décembre 2004, à Bamako, Mali. GCoZA, Oslo.
16. Berkele, Y., Mossige, Anne. 2005. Awareness Promotion and Experience Sharing on the Implementation of UNCCD-NAP to Enhance Pastoralist Areas Development. Workshop organized by the Drylands Coordination Group Ethiopia for the Pastoral Affairs Standing Committee and the Natural Resource Development and Environmental Protection Standing Committee, Members of Parliament - Ethiopia. December 17-19, 2004 in Nazareth, Ethiopia. DCG, Miljøhuset, Oslo.
52 Natural Resource Management in the Didinga Hills
53
Drylands Coordination Group
Drylands Coordination Group Addresses in Norway:
Secretariat of the Drylands Coordination Group Grensen 9b, 0159 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 23 10 94 90, Fax: + 47 23 10 94 94 E-mail: [email protected]
ADRA Norge Postboks 124, 3529 Røyse, Norway Tel.: +47 32 16 16 90, Fax: +47 32 16 16 71 E-mail: [email protected]
CARE Norge Universitetsgt. 12, 0164 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 22 20 39 30, Fax: +47 22 20 39 36 E-mail: [email protected]
Development Fund Grensen 9b, 0159 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 23 10 96 00, Fax: +47 23 10 96 01 E-mail: [email protected]
Norwegian Church Aid Postboks 7100, St. Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway Tel: + 47 22 09 27 00, Fax: + 47 22 09 27 20 E-mail: [email protected]
Norwegian People’s Aid P.O. Box 8844 Youngstorget, 0028 Oslo, Norway Tel: + 47 22 03 77 00, Fax: + 47 22 17 70 82 E-mail: [email protected]
Noragric, Department for International Environment and Development Studies University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway Tel: +47 64 94 99 50, Fax: +47 64 94 07 60 E-mail: [email protected]
54